Assyria-n & Assyrian do not go to the same place, and your edit turned the right link wrong. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Assyrian is a disambiguation page, and nothing should go to it at all. Please find an appropriate link target. Cheers! bd2412T 04:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't be even more of a twat. The link went to Assyria, and YOU changed it to go to Assyrian. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe you can see that your edit clearly changed it from my fix, "Assyria" to the disambiguation page "Assyrian"; perhaps you were confused? bd2412T 14:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, apologies, but you do realize that this page was archived 3 months ago? Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but in trying to clean up incoming links to Assyrian, it still shows up as a link. There is no way to distinguish which pages are archived on the "What links here" page, so it merely presents another link to be checked every single time disambiguators work on incoming links to that page. Typically, disambiguation links in templates are a huge problem, because they can transclude to dozens of other pages, causing those to show up in our reports as containing a disambiguation link which can not be found when the page itself is checked. Although that is not the case here, it is the basis for our very intense efforts to keep disambiguation links out of template space as much as possible. Given the importance of this cleanup to the project, I would appreciate if you would fix this particular link. Sooner or later, other disambiguators will come across the same link and try to fix it anyway. bd2412T 14:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I accidentally overwrote your last comment in writing my response to it. I would still appreciate if you would implement an appropriate fix to the current disambiguation link, for the reasons outlined in my previous paragraph. Otherwise, I hope you will not object if I implement such a fix. bd2412T 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's done. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
for some reason, that was held under PC... is it because you're using AWB? i was under the impression that all sysops were autoconfirmed, at the least, and the edit should have be auto-accepted. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I am autoconfirmed - I can think of no good reason why pending changes should be invoked. I make dozens of AWB edits per day, and this is the first I'm hearing of an issue. bd2412T 23:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued efforts at New York. User:William M. Bugbee regrets that he will be unable to join us, as his strings have been cut. Certes (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess next time I invite someone to a discussion, I should vet them better first! bd2412T 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Are there no admins that put weight on guidelines any more? Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a reason they're called "guidelines" you know. WP:NO CONSENSUS, however, is not a guideline. bd2412T 02:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
By default, guidelines should be considered "tie breakers" when consensus is not otherwise obvious. Or so I've always thought, based on discussions of how to determine consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If the opinion here was divided, say, 7 to 4, that would be a case for a tiebreaker. Here there is a clear absence of consensus. bd2412T 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
5–5 is not a tie? 5 wanting to follow guidelines (and sources) and 5 wanting to ignore all that... Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that in the context of establishing consensus, we always look for something much more than a 51%-49% split. bd2412T 10:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus to only cap proper names is very well established. Opposers here acknowledge (some of them) that this is not one, and we should just ignore and change that longstanding consensus. This is nuts. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Where were those people in this discussion, then? bd2412T 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. And that's why I'm depressed. Not just admins, but other editors, don't seem to care to respect such consensus any more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Perhaps it has. If you disagree with the close, you know the procedure to address that. bd2412T 01:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I am pestering you again, because you have been on Wiki a lot longer than I have.
H, who we discussed recently, seems to have their head screwed on.
So does Q, who has this month fixed a remarkable number of links. I've looked at several of their fixes, and they seemed to me sound enough. You might care to take a look also, in case I'm wrong. DPL may have another new recruit, and a long-time user at that.
As for me, I'm just going to keep plugging away in the depths of the Bonus List. I've just reached "Se-"; so, less than 4,000 to go to the end, now. When I've done what I can with that lot, I plan to start again from the top for the new stuff which has appeared behind me. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not pestering at all - I am glad to have the updates! bd2412T 10:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Another heads-up. EoW is another dab-fixer who seems recently to have come out of nowhere. I haven't sampled any of their fixes, but have fixed a lot of their {{dn}} tags. I've found a lot of them easy - but have no criticism of that, for obvious reasons. I've just had a look at EoW's Talk Page - where another editor has recently complained about EoW adding {{dn}} tags rather than making the "obvious fixes" <sigh />. So, I posted a message of encouragement and an invitation to contact me. Narky Blert (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, {{dn}} tags are better than an untagged disambiguation link. If it's an easy fix, at least the tag will alert someone to make the easy fix. EoW has been around a while, and seems to know what they are doing. bd2412T 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Just letting you know that in this edit you added a spurious gallery to the 1940's section. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because from the edit summary it looks as though you used an automated tool to perform the edit - did you intend to add the gallery, or is the tool malfunctioning? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this is the edit that added that gallery. All I did was to fix the disambiguation link "Japanese". bd2412T 11:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Huh, you're right (of course). I think I must have compared a range of diffs by mistake. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem at all. It happens. bd2412T 11:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You replaced{{This is a redirect|from move}} with {{Redirect category shell|from move}} which displays "This page is a redirect: from move". The correct syntax would be:
You replaced{{This is a redirect|from nickname|upw}} with {{Redirect category shell|from nickname|upw}} which displays "This page is a redirect: upw". The correct syntax would be:
{{Redirect category shell |
{{R from nickname}}
{{R unprintworthy}}
}}
I fixed those two example cases, the latter being actually a {{Redirect from misspelling}}. I let you figure out how to fix all your changes. Note that it is recommended to leave two newlines before the {{Redirect category shell}}, whereas a lot of redirect pages have the {{redr}} template directly behind the redirect code; you might want to fix that too. Best of luck! — JFGtalk 03:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
For the time being, I have set my bot to revert all the changes. I'll figure out the complete fix this weekend, if no one else does so first. bd2412T 03:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like your new version does the job, thanks! — JFGtalk 13:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there are large swaths of this task that will have to be done manually. bd2412T 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why? Ran into trouble? — JFGtalk 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just occasional instances of unique formulations that are not easily amenable to an automated scheme of correction. Things like ΦΛX look particularly vexing. There is also some tendency for additional templates to appear outside of the "This is a redirect" template, so that they would still fall outside the shell once generated. Technically, that isn't wrong, but they still shouldn't be that way. bd2412T 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, by moving {{pp-move-indef}} to the top, you broke the redirect. For a redirect to work, it must be at the very start of the page's code. You can preview a redirect before you save: if what you have is a working redirect then it will display as a bent arrow followed by a link to the target page. — Smjg (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That should not have happened. I will make sure it does not, going forward. bd2412T 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello BD2412. I noticed some recent edits of yours using AWB to replace the depreciated {{This is a redirect}} and it seems you are not achieving your goal. For example, when you arrived at Augustus Kenan, the page had the following content:
#REDIRECT [[Augustus Holmes Kenan]]
{{Redr|from personal name|from short name}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kenan, Augustus}}
After your edit, the page is arranged with the following content, as shown:
#REDIRECT [[Augustus Holmes Kenan]]
{{This is a redirect|from personal name|from short name}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kenan, Augustus}}
You are adding an extra new line between #REDIRECT [[Augustus Holmes Kenan]] and the {{Rcat}}s and furthermore when you replace {{Redr}} with {{This is a redirect}} you are still using the depreciated template; merely replacing a shortcut with its target. I'm not entirely sure why your edit summary describes this as a multi step process either as it is certainly achievable in one step. The end result for the example here should be either:
#REDIRECT [[Augustus Holmes Kenan]]
{{Redirect category shell|{{R from personal name}}{{R from short name}} }}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kenan, Augustus}}
or
#REDIRECT [[Augustus Holmes Kenan]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from personal name}}
{{R from short name}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kenan, Augustus}}
Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That is why it is a multi-step process. I have a script to replace certain specific combinations, but they all start with {{This is a redirect| so I don't have to do everything twice (once with {{This is a redirect| and once with {{redr|); however, to capture the broadest swath, I first replace {{redr| everywhere. That way, I will capture the most common simple uses first, and make everything else uniform so that it is easier to implement the more complex uses later. bd2412T 10:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that reply. I understand. And thank you for helping clean-up these redirects, it is well appreciated.--John Cline (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just as an additional note, {{this is a redirect}} is now on the auto-subst list, so you don't need to be performing bot-like edits at bot-like speed, especially when those edits fail WP:COSMETICBOT. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how auto-substing can possibly work when there are so many pages with unrecognized parameter issues. This is the case for enormous numbers of R from modification templates. bd2412T 18:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Examples please? I'm not sure what you mean by "unrecognized parameters". Primefac (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
For example, Bus. Day (South Africa). The e0 parameter (specifically "e0=Suggest using this redirect in referring to this publication in citations") ceases to be visible on the page when "This is a redirect" is switched to "Redirect category shell". bd2412T 18:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Um... looks like it works fine to me. It actually looks like your replacements aren't working properly, not the autosubst. Trust me, this wrapper/replacement was cleared by a few people. I know what I'm doing. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of a replacement of mine not working properly? By the way, my current task is just removing excess new lines added during my initial experimental run. Another editor has asked me to do this, so I am accommodating. bd2412T 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, interesting, I misread the template you were shifting around. My apologies. However, doing massive AWB runs that only alter whitespace are generally not permitted per COSMETICBOT. So I highly suggest that even if a #REDIRECT doesn't have a space between it and the {{redr}} you should leave it be. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, I added this whitespace during my test run of fixing the redirect shells. This addition has drawn a stern objection, so I am removing it. I will be done within a few hours. I suppose I could do so without using AWB, but that would take years. bd2412T 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Either way, a few spaces are immaterial. If you had broken something on your first AWB run, then by all means you should fix it. But accidentally adding in an extra hard return doesn't break anything. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue was that I added extra line breaks while experimenting with a good pattern to replace a deprecated template. Another editor complained that they are "undesirable", so I was just cleaning up after myself. I was also using the run as an opportunity to find an fix a real error, the replication of a "p1" parameter tag that was used in the deprecated template but did not have the intended effect in the successor template. bd2412T 00:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, but see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use #3, #4, and please stop. All you you've been doing recently could and should be done by a bot. Then your edits could be filtered out in watchlists. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I completed this course of edits quite a while ago—last month, UTC, actually—and have since moved on to other things. I don't understand why you are addressing the matter as if I were still in the midst of actively doing this. bd2412T 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Negative. The linked edit is recent [2], and it is just a random selection out of hundreds (or thousands). "Last month" is correct and irrelevant - May has started hours ago. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the task is completed. It's over. Done. Finished. Kaput. Hence the past tense in my initial response. bd2412T 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems relevant, given that six hours ago I was the one asking you not to continue making such edits. Apparently it takes multiple admins requesting something before you do it? But, as you say, you're done and finished, so hopefully there won't be a "next time". Primefac (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, consider me admonished. I'll just get back to disambiguation link fixing. Cheers! bd2412T 01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my mistake of redirecting Mind control to its disambiguation page. However I still see a problem and I'm not sure what to do. As you said, consensus says that brainwashing should be called brainwashing, not called mind control. But that's what the redirect does now, redirects mind control to brainwashing. BigJim707 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I see what you are saying. Someone put a link to the mind control disambiguation page on Brainwashing and that takes care of what I was seeing was a problem. BigJim707 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all the check wiki and other cleanups you perform on a mostly daily basis, without you we would probably have nothing but check wiki errors on every page on Wikipedia. ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk 20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am hardly the only person doing this, or the most productive editor in this area. bd2412T 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romanov. Since you had some involvement with the Romanov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have weighed in. Cheers! bd2412T 02:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Springs, Alexander requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HapHaxion(talk / contribs) 03:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm working on Samuel Farrow Rice. I didn't realize you had a draft for it. I suggest you delete it? And maybe we could just add your succession box.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
On WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jesus_Christ There's an ongoing discussion regarding the template you used to semi-protect our article Jesus Christ. I had to use the bracketed version because someone placed a redirect to our article Jesus on it. Which works, and should seem to remove any NPOV concerns regarding Jesus Christ, but Hijiri 88 is wishing to change the template from your wording to a less-restrictive version. Since you're still an active editor, I think your reasoning for the existing template would contribute considerably to the disucssion. Please consider adding it to that discussion. Thank you in advance loupgarous (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
My edit was strictly for purposes of replacing the deprecated {{This is a redirect}} category shell with the new {{Redirect category shell}} category shell. I have no preference for what specific categories are listed therein. bd2412T 04:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump rape case. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump rape case redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFGtalk 04:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have responded there, thanks. bd2412T 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You have really cleaned up the Nolan BLP nicely! I doubt that it will stay that way for long, but it is in much better condition than before. You managed to include all the relevant content while remaining truthful but avoiding anything scurrilous that has not yet been established in a court of law.
The real reason that I am here is because I would like to know how you added the two very large bouncing Wikipedia balls to your user page. I have a small discrete one at the bottom of mine, but I like yours better. I don't want to open your user page for editing and go poking around to figure it out, so I will just ask you directly. Another positive about your version: Your bouncing Wikipedia even shows up on hover-over! I want mine to too!
Thank you for considering my request.--FeralOink (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! The code for the top and bottom bouncing Wiki-balls is:
To be honest, the top one is a little bit of a pain, because the image overlaps the top of the sidebar menu, so I can't click on the main page link from my user page. I keep it around anyway. Cheers! bd2412T 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I am going to give it a try right now :o) --FeralOink (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be working. Cheers! bd2412T 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We are a team of social scientists conducting research on collaboration among Wikipedians and would love your input. We have prepared a very short survey (it takes just a few seconds to a few minutes) that asks about your political preferences and if you had any experiences collaborating with editors with similar or different preferences. Please fill it out here:
For me, the most interesting part of the book is its neurobehavioral approach to trauma, implicating the survival routines in the protoreptilian brain. The case material is also interesting as one can see how he uses his theory to guide his clinical work; however, the theory and case material are entangled by a self-help format that weakens his presentation and jeopardizes the overall organization of the book. I found it necessary to ignore the self-help aspects of the book to appreciate this interesting hypothesis and useful application, and I believe the book is more appropriately used by professionals rather than directly by patients or clients.
After the AfD was closed, I found a second book review:
The book is divided into four sections. Section I: The Body as Healer; Section II: Symptoms of Trauma; Section III: Transformationand Renegotiation; and Section IV: First Aid for Trauma. Section I describes the triune brain—reptilian instinctual brain, the mammalian or limbicemotional brain, and the human brain or neo-cortex, the rational brain. Peter Levine explains the ideal fully resourced 'present time' situation of an antelope on the African plains to the smell of lion. There is a fight or flight reaction and the antelope returns to the ideal state when the danger goes away. If the fight or flight response is inadequate, the antelope may 'drop down dead,' a catatonic state resulting in dissociation and immobilization, a highly charged imploded state. The animal appears dead and the lion walks away. The antelope reassociates, blinks, shivers, trembles, gets up, discharges excess energy, orientates, looks for the herd, and starts grazing as though nothing had happened.
...
As a Craniosacral Therapist, I have found this work of Peter Levine invaluable in helping me to help my clients to resolve long forgotten traumas that are stopping them from living a fulfilling life.
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Only one editor commented after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until now.
I don't intend to. It should go through the usual process for submitting drafts. As the closer of the last discussion, I will remain uninvolved in this process.` bd2412T 11:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the draft to mainspace at Waking the Tiger after my rewrite because {{db-repost}} is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I disapprove. I doubt this decision will end well. bd2412T 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What submitting drafts process did you want me to use? Wikipedia:Articles for creation is for unregistered editors or editors with a conflict of interest. I am a registered editor and do not have a conflict of interest. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have preferred some process to obtain community consensus to do this. bd2412T 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can add the AfC draft tag to their draft and press submit. Unfortunately as a process it is haphazard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
How can you say, "The result was no consensus to delete".
Let see how may Keep & Delete we have.
Walter Görlitz, TH1980, Myself said "Keep"
Celestina007, Ifnord said "Delete"
MelanieN, wasn't sure "Keep vs. Delete"
"Oluwa2Chainz" Redirect
Let not count "MKJ6006" because it is a said to be a sockpuppet. Which is still up and running "Sockpuppet investigations".
Keep
Delete
Not sure (Keep vs Delete)
Redirect
3
2
1
1
If i was to add "MKJ6006" contribution, it would be.
Keep
Delete
Not sure (Keep vs Delete)
Redirect
4
2
1
1
But since it is a 50/50 possibility of it been a Sockpuppet and undergoing "Sockpuppet investigations" let not count "MKJ6006" contribution to the adf. That bring us back to 3 Keep
How did the result show's "The result was no consensus to delete" please explain, course i don't understand the adf any longer.--Obari2Kay (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The result is "no consensus to delete" because there is not a consensus to delete. A !vote to "redirect" is effectively a proposal to delete the existing content of the page, which basically makes this a tie - no consensus to keep, no consensus to delete. bd2412T 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank's for explaining, now i understand. Guest Wikipedia is really an encyclopedia as it is said to be, we the contributor's still get's to learn more as we contribute to Wikipedia day to day.--Obari2Kay (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412! I noticed that an inexperienced user made an improper close of Talk:Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia#Requested move 17 May 2017: the discussion was only open 3 days, it's not an obvious SNOW and the closer is involved. I would have reverted and explained what he did wrong, but I'm involved too. Could you please take a look at the matter and dispense some sage advice? Many thanks in advance, — JFGtalk 20:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Any editor can boldly engage in a minor technical move, which the mover here appears to believe this move was (characterizing it as fixing a grammatical error); any editor can revert such a move. The discussion is apart from that activity, but it has not been formally closed, so it will continue until it is, and a different outcome in the discussion will override any change made in the interim. I will note this in the discussion. bd2412T 20:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Should we restore the RM header though, until the nominal 7-day period has elapsed? — JFGtalk 21:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how much difference it really makes. bd2412T 22:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
bd2412, I was wondering if you could help me understand something. Every once in awhile, I come across a dablink (orange, since I have a script) that links to a non-dab page, and I haven't been able to figure out why. An example is the redirect Shoah, which targets The Holocaust. It shows up in the Christianity and antisemitism article as orange, and yet the popup clearly shows that it redirects to a non-dab page. It also appears in the Special pages:Pages linking to disambiguation pages as #941. So what I don't get is why Shoah is on that SP list and shows up as an orange link that needs to be dabbed? Paine Ellsworthput'r there 22:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Waitasec, I just checked the Shoah edit screen and found __STATICREDIRECT__, __NOEDITSECTION__ and __DISAMBIG__ were added to the redirect in February by editor Henia Perlman. I'll ask that editor why those additions were made. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 22:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I just checked and found three incorrect links, which should have pointed to New York City. I fixed them. I find more every day. bd2412T 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, you closed the Efe Ejeba's AFD with "... Please note that this is not intended to impugn their motives; however, editors with little experience in editing Wikipedia are likely to have a grasp of sourcing and notability requirements.", what I think you meant was ... Please note that this is not intended to impugn their motives; however, editors with little experience in editing Wikipedia are likely NOT to have a grasp of sourcing and notability requirements.. I believe it's a typo and wanted to overlook but this AFD might come in handy if the article is recreated by some new editors in the future. Regards. Darreg (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for noting. bd2412T 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I was about to WP:RFD this redirect to Zhang Ji, when I noticed who had created it. This is a Chinese name in which the surname is Zhang and the given name Ji; so this reads rather like e.g. John, Smith. I suggest moving without leaving a redirect to Ji Zhang, the Western name order. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I do think that westerners unfamiliar with Chinese name order may do a last-name-first redirect search, with the requisite comma, expecting to be taken to the name in its conventional order. bd2412T 18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
But, Ji is the first name not the last name. Yrs. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that; however, redirects should be useful for people likely to get this wrong, not just for people familiar with Asian name ordering. bd2412T 23:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted some redirects from the Agent: Century 21 discussion, but it looks like the discussion is still open. Could you please formally close it? Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I was going to do that, but there are some links there that I am not sure what to do with. I was thinking that over when I got called away by something else. bd2412T 20:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for doing so! It's nice seeing fresh closers at RfD. --Tavix(talk) 21:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. That was a fair close that appropriately implemented (what I believe to have been) the policy-based outcome that should have happened in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. bd2412T 03:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stamper, Tim. Since you had some involvement with the Stamper, Tim redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 09:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have responded in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 03:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Keφr 10:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I have replied there. Cheers! bd2412T 03:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd been making improvements to this article and found the Talk page archive bot had not been working for several years. So I did manual archiving, and found the Talk page linked to Talk:Signal (disambiguation)/One and was not linking to the new archive, but to Signal. I tried renaming/moving the article to "Signal/One (company)" with no success. I tried undoing some redirects as well.
That was an error on my part. The use of the slash in the title makes the page register as a subpage of Signal, which was moved pursuant to Talk:Signal#Requested move 3 April 2017. When a page is moved, subpages are generally automatically moved. I have deleted the redirect. bd2412T 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear BD2412, I would like to inform that last women races were carried out in a different order; Slalom was held on March 7th, Giant on March 8th - please see the German and French Wikipedia! I don't know if English speaking users are interested in details - I would like to suggest that you may read the German Wikipedia: Women downhill at Cortina (to be held on March 4th) was cancaled. Cindy Nelson was the first racer from USA winning a female downhill race for the US Ski Federation (it was the first podium for USA in female downhill races!) a.s.o. Nice regards: Skiscout (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Florida Collaboration Notice
at Donald Gary Young. A browse of this article, among numerous others, might impress you of the extent of quackery this person practices, some of which are known as his own "inventions". Interested in your opinion here. --Zefr (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I just don't see how he is notable enough as a pseudoscientist to fit into the top-level category as an individual. Also, the source is thirty years old, not from a particularly high-level source or reporter, and doesn't contain the word "pseudoscience". I believe we have had BLP discussions before where the consensus has been that we don't label people as pseudoscientists (or proponents of pseudoscience) unless a source uses the term. bd2412T 01:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed your recent edits adding redirects from the inverse form of names usually used by encyclopedias. Is this now standard practice? Could you please refer me to the discussion? Thanks. Reply here is fine. --Bejnar (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a specific discussion, but we've been making these redirects since nearly the very beginning of Wikipedia - longer, even, than I have been around (see, e.g., Bush, George, created in July 2004). bd2412T 19:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So, should it be part of my people-article creation/review checklist, or is it just appropriate for certain articles? --Bejnar (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I would add it to such a checklist. I can't see a circumstance where one should not be created, for a Western name (i.e., first name, surname). bd2412T 20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You are replacing a lot of links that used to go to a disambiguation page for Ruthenian Catholic Church with links to Ruthenian Greek Catholic Churchwhen they should actually be going to Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Almost anything using the term "Ruthenian" to refer to people, dioceses, events, or places in Europe should be linking to the UGCC (historically known as the Ruthenian Catholic Church or the Ruthenian Uniate Church), as well as anything in Canada, or generally almost any usage not referring to the United States or (some) relatively recent references to Zakarpatia or the Czech Republic. You're actually sowing more confusion than you are clearing up. Please go back and check the changes you've made, and where necessary either switch them to the UGCC or revert them if you can't tell which one is actually right. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed a few of them for you, but I don't want to go back through everything you've done. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted all of the changes that I implemented with respect to this page. Up until yesterday, the article now at Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church was at Ruthenian Catholic Church - it was a reasonable presumption that incoming links were intended for the content already at the target. This is why, as a rule, incoming links to a page should be fixed before that page is turned into a disambiguation page. bd2412T 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It was definitely a reasonable presumption (even without the page move, but especially with it). I had assumed you were editing in good faith, if that wasn't clear. I hadn't realized that the article at Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church had recently been moved although that makes sense now that I think about it. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well if you're going to get all "blank ancient IP talk page messages using AWB" as if there's nothing better to do, I'm going to make a grilled cheese sandwich and go to bed. AND IF THE FRONT PAGE GETS DELETED ITLL BE YOUR FAULT Drmies (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
IP talk pages generally contain links to articles (that's why messages get put on them in the first place), which causes excess link load - when you go to the "what links here" page of an article, there may be a ton of IP talk pages obscuring more pertinent search results. Blanking those IP talk pages clears those up for things like disambiguation link searches, where those links are scattered across multiple relevant namespaces. bd2412T 04:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
