Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412
This editor is very active in WP:DPL, and does a lot of good, but can sometimes be very wrong indeed. I have had to correct three of their edits from links to DAB pages which were plain outright wrong. I don't doubt their good faith, but these edits were very bad indeed:
Wrong! See IMDb (much as I dislike IMDb as a source).
A SCOTUS case. Rodw had linked to a NY state judge rather than to the SCOTUS Associate Justice of the same name. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In that case, the thing to do is not just correct the edit, but revert and then correct; that way, they will get an alert. bd2412T 01:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
TY. My idea also. In the most recent instance I found, I wanted to do that but could not easily do so. I would have had to revert and to repair several intervening good edits.
(I fell across this issue by pure accident. It seems that we two editors were working on similar but not identical lists, and that I was two hours behind. I kept coming across items in disambiguation pages with links (my battleground) which had been allegedly resolved. I followed my usual procedure of trying to solve a problem without assuming that it had already been solved, or looking at the DAB page, or indeed opening the Edit Page on the article.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
There's an editor challenging formatting in (I'm assuming) all US judicial infoboxes. They say (MOS:ACCESS#Text/MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections.") as one would do with the education field of any judicial infobox Example: | education = University of Virginia(BA) University of Cambridge(MPhil) Harvard Law School(JD))
Should the status quo stay as is or does it really need to be changed as they suggest? I looked for guidance at the Project page and couldn't find anything. What do you say?
Snickers2686 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this practice is limited to judicial infoboxes, but I can see no particular reason compelling the use of the smaller font sizes. bd2412T 17:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to mention this to User:Fitindia also, but in a 50 entry Special:RecentChanges snapshot, the two of you were 45+ entries. Both saying AWB. All edits in the same single minute (03:20). Kinda makes selecting "Human (not bot)" useless. Isn't there some kind of rate limiting idea? Shenme (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I am at the tail end of diffusing a massive category. I am doing this manually, with eyes on every edit. However, the edits are very straightforward, so I can confirm them very quickly. Rate limiting is not useful in this circumstance. bd2412T 03:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed RM discussion at Talk:Gjon Kastrioti as not moved because absence of consensus (diff). Multiple editors who supported renaming presented numerous valid arguments based in vikipedia policies. I am sorry if I am wrong, but I did not see a single such arguement presented by the oppose party. Will you please clarify what arguments of the oppose party which are based in wikipedia policies you took into consideration before you closed this discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The arguments presented in opposition pointed to the existence of sources using the existing title. Where the existing title is permissible, consensus is required to change the status quo. bd2412T 16:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I don't know how much we've interacted but I've seen you around for a long time and respect your opinions on various WP things. I was researching an issue and ran across an edit of yours from 4 years ago that suggested you might have some insight into this.
Are published court opinions--say, SCOTUS opinions--reliable sources for the facts they contain, as opposed to their legal analysis, holdings, or judgments? Would they be considered primary or secondary sources for such things? I've generally shied away from citing court opinions directly, preferring to rely on derivative sources such as news coverage and law review articles, but, as a matter of our policies and guidelines, can court opinions be cited, and if so would they require in-text attribution? Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In a sense, court opinions are like Wikipedia articles, in that good ones cite sources for all the propositions they make. Under Wikipedia policy, court opinions are generally considered primary sources, and grouped into the sources that are discouraged. However, having been a law clerk, I am familiar with the scrutiny that statements of fact are given before being including in the text of opinions, and I would be fine using them for this purpose in a pinch. I did this for a fairly basic proposition at Bar review. bd2412T 16:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you and I are somewhat aligned on this. I'm concerned that this isn't often followed in practice. For instance, if you look at the FA's on SCOTUS cases, many of them rely exclusively on the court opinions themselves for their analysis of the opinions. I mean look at Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. for instance. Am I mistaken or does that FA look like a law review comment and a blatant violation of WP:OR? There's no shortage of secondary sources covering that case; it's Palsgraf for heaven's sake! And editors are pointing to that article as as an example of how articles on other cases should be written. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think that court opinions are reliable for statements of fact? Is it fair to say that law clerks perform independent fact checking, when their review is based solely on the records in front of them, which are usually generated by two obviously unreliable parties? I'd look at it this way. No doubt a good law clerk can conduct a factual review that's reliable within the context and framing of the dispute. But is it going to be reliable for the truth-seeking public in the same way that, say a newsroom editor's review would be? The newsroom editor isn't necessarily going to take the disputants at their word if they agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been a law clerk. Yes, we absolutely do independent fact checking (particularly at the appellate level). It is incorrect to say that our review is based solely on the records. Although we look very carefully at the sources parties provide in support of their factual claims, we also look at outside expert sources (and sometimes consult directly with our own experts). Bear in mind, litigants generally become aware of the kinds of sources that courts rely on, and also tend to cite those sources in briefs and motions. As for Palsgraf, I suspect that every Wikipedian who goes to law school takes a shot at editing that case. bd2412T 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you might have been a particularly good law clerk or had a particularly good judge, haha. I do appreciate your insight however. In any case, do you think there's an OR problem with our Palsgraf article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of sources cited other than the case itself. It's not wrong information, so I can think of a lot of things in the encyclopedia that need attention more than this article. bd2412T 18:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As a lurker, let me just point out that statements like "what you're concerned about is not as important as some other things" are just worthless and annoying. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The concerns being raised here are not as important to me. I have expressed my opinion that the article under discussion is correct on its face. In light of that, looking for things to do to "fix" it is make-work. bd2412T 19:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are fine, but the kind of contrast expressed in "I can think of a lot of things in the encyclopedia that need attention more than this article" are just demeaning. I can think of lots more important things, too, but if someone has a serious question about something they care about, saying this doesn't help anybody. We get variations of this all too often, like "why don't you go work on something important instead". It's lame, and BD2412 probably knows better, and just lapsed into a bad pattern. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In retrospect, I can see how my initial choice of words could be taken as overly dismissive. bd2412T 14:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Believe you me BD, I have no interest in tearing apart an FA that's well-written from a legal analysis perspective, even if it's all OR. I'm just concerned that cases like that are being held up as templates for how other articles should be written in WP. Of course there's always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But since you have as much experience writing case articles as anyone else, and I always appreciate your input, I would like your take on the OR aspect of that article, if you have a take and are willing to share. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
For most of our case articles, this would be a vast improvement. bd2412T 22:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose I'm nitpicking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This is kind of off-topic, but I don't see what's wrong with the Palsgraf article. The facts are well-sourced. And, in an article about a judicial opinion, it actually doesn't matter whether the facts stated in the opinion are "true" or not; they are the facts on which the court based its opinion, whether the court got them right or not. Now, if we were talking about United States v. Nixon it would be a different matter, since the facts about the Watergate investigation obviously are of historical significance in many other contexts besides just the court's analysis in that one case. But what happened to Mrs. Palsgraf at the East New York station one day in 1924 is not of any historical significance whatsoever except to the extent it affected the outcome of the court case, and the facts that affected the outcome are those that the court believed to be true, regardless of what later historical research may reveal. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I just came across this discussion and I think that of those above, R'n'B's views probably come closest to mine. A practicing lawyer, or judge deciding a subsequent case, would ordinarily rely on the facts that a court set forth in its decision for purposes of understanding that decision. Similarly, a Wikipedia article on a court decision would ordinarily summarize relevant facts as found by the court. If the facts of the case are non-controversial, we can ordinarily go a step further and accept that the facts as described by the court are probably what actually happened. On the other hand, if the facts were disputed between the parties, then it is better to report that the court accepted the plaintiff's version the facts, which was thus-and-such, as opposed to simply saying that the facts reflect what happened.
If a case is well-known (among lawyers or more broadly in history), there may be additional sources for the underlying facts, which may be helpful to fill our or supplement the facts as found by the court. Such additional sources are not essential to every case-related article, but may be helpful for some of them.
Because it is unusually celebrated, Palsgraf is an unusual example of how we can find sources to cite in a case-report article. For a case that involved a small, local, non-fatal accident, the case has attracted an enormous secondary literature of a type that most other cases will be unable to match. And as it happens, much of that secondary literature revolves around the specific question of whether the facts as reported in the opinions corresponded with what actually happened that morning at the Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica station. It has suggested that Chief Judge Cardozo, for all of his greatness, was not always meticulous in setting forth the facts of his cases. See, for example, Judge Richard Posner's book Cardozo: A Study in Reputation, which describes Cardozo's recital of Palsgraff's facts as "both elliptical and slanted" (p. 38) and refers to Cardozo's "selection and alteration of facts" (p. 40)—but then goes on to discuss why Cardozo might, whether consciously or subconsciously, whether rightly or wrongly, have used this technique to assist more broadly in the development of the law. For anyone interested in this discussion, Posner's book is recommended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad and R'n'B: - I think that this analysis is so reasonable that it should be codified into a guideline somewhere. Do either of you mind if I quote you in a draft? bd2412T 21:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay with me too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input everyone. My concern isn't that the Palsgraf article is wrong or unverifiable. It was clearly written by one or more people proficient at summarizing legal cases, and appears to be a valid analysis. But that's exactly the problem--it reads as Wikipedia's analysis, which is exactly what WP:OR is designed to avoid. My concern is that the article runs afoul of the following parts of WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think a line can be parsed here. If we were citing the trial transcripts to describe what happened, that would be problematic and OR. I don't see anything in this article that appears to present the opinion of an editor, rather than the opinion of either the court examining the case, or an expert in the field commenting on the opinion of the court. bd2412T 19:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that opinion content would be much worse than what was done in the Palsgraf article. However WP:PRIMARY doesn't just restrict analyzing transcripts or opinion editing. I'm harping on this not to say it's so bad (it's not), but to contend that codifying the views expressed here into a guideline somewhere would be contrary to broader WP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, WP:OR does not bar the use of primary sources; it merely cautions that they be used carefully, to avoid substituting the editor's opinion for the facts. Closely paraphrasing what the court said would seem to avoid that possibility. bd2412T 21:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toontown is a case involving the sometimes fuzzy distinction between disambiguation, set index and broad-concept pages. Thought I'd solicit your participation, since you usually have an opinion on related matters. Not really "canvassing", as I have no idea which side you might lean to in this particular case. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have offered an opinion there, thanks. bd2412T 23:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I understand you're a very busy editor, but this wasn't exactly your best decision. Two editors supported my proposed title, though one of them proposed a version in which "conquest" is supplemented with "control". Two others correctly pointed out that the date range in the current title doesn't comply with MoS guidelines. The only opponent later realized that the definite article is used more commonly than they'd originally thought and didn't mention the conquest vs. invasion argument in their second comment. Would you kindly revise you closure, or at least consider WP:THREEOUTCOMES#3 which also deals with situations in which more than one title is proposed? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest, rather, a new move proposal with a different proposed solution which takes into account the comments made in the discussion, and generates a clear consensus for a specific outcome. bd2412T 16:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I already considered this before coming here, but there's not much to add to the original RM. The two points of contention were "invasion" vs. "conquest" and "Sudan" vs. "the Sudan". The latter was discussed most, and no one proposed a combination (e.g. "invasion of the Sudan"), if that's what you meant by taking into account others' comments. The only deviation from these points was a suggestion to include "and control" to the title I proposed, but that should be discussed independently. What would you have done differently if you were in my place? I'm not asking you to be involved. All I'm asking from you is to reopen the RM. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Very well, then. bd2412T 18:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps protection was lost when I revdeleted the page. Restored. bd2412T 21:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Whatever it takes. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I seem to have been caught up in the crossfire, yet again. I cannot edit LPS. I have now no reason to do so. But, in future I might have a reason, and would not be able to. Narky Blert (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
You can't edit it because it is protected. No one can edit it for the next week except for admins, in case the spammer comes back under another account name. Edits can be proposed on the talk page. bd2412T 22:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That looks to be a WP:SNOW. Probably worth re-RMing Pontius Pilate's wife after all these years, since it's the same case, and WP:CCC seems to be at work. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the new category you're adding to a bunch of pages has an invisible unicode character in it (left-to-right mark, whatever that is), so we're also seeing a bot clean up after this. Please fix this before continuing. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine why that is happening. I am using AWB with no settings except to add the category, and with general fixes and unicodification disabled. I will try rebooting it. bd2412T 23:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's still there. I don't know what's causing it, but it might be a good idea to wait and figure out what's going on before plowing ahead with more of these. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll switch to manual editing. That shouldn't have any effect. bd2412T 00:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I just used AWB successfully to add a category with nothing weird going on. Maybe you can just re-enter the category name? It was just an odd invisible character that was being added at the end. If nothing else, you could always paste it in from somewhere you know doesn't have the extra character. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the new ones seem okay at least; sorry for the hassle, but it seems fine now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Manual is fine to finish the set. Thanks. bd2412T 00:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you please look at this again? I see three for (myself, Cuchullain and AjaxSmack) and one against (jamacfarlane) the proposed title. The against supported a move. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
AjaxSmack neither supported nor opposed the proposed move. A change to the status quo requires a consensus in support of that change, which I do not see here. bd2412T 01:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
So two explicit supports for the proposed move (myself and Cuchullain), plus one explicit non-oppose to proposal (Ajax), plus one support for an alternate title based on the same rationale as the proposal (jamacfarlane: article is about multiple treaties). The last user asked, "Or is 'peace' another term for the treaties". I answered yes, but said user did not return to the thread. Among four participants, not one opposed the proposed title. Three of four explicitly supported a move on the same grounds (article is not about a single treaty of Utrecht). I think it is clear that there was more support for the proposed title than the status quo. If Ajax is absolutely neutral, then it is 2 for, 1 for an alternate and 0 for the status quo. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I have re-opened the discussion. Perhaps a different admin will read it differently. Perhaps there will be further discussion leading to a clear consensus. bd2412T 02:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There was also a proposal to move Moritz Wagner to a DAB page and the current article to Moritz Wagner (naturalist) that was gaining steam. You did not address this when you closed the proposal to rename it. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There was no comment in the discussion for five days at the time of closure. If anything was "gaining steam" it quickly stopped. There is also no discussion of WP:TWODABS, which disfavors two-link disambiguation pages (the disambiguation function being more efficiently served in a hatnote), and which requires evidence of the absence of a primary topic to change a longstanding status quo. bd2412T 22:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There were three folks voting to move the naturalist page and only one opposing (and he did it twice). I don’t really see a compelling reason the naturalist is the primary of you are going by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That suggests that one article should have the clear preponderance of hits when searching. That’s not happening with the naturalist today. Rikster2 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also considers the long-term historical importance of the subject. I see zero discussion of the historical importance of the basketball player. bd2412T 23:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
On Adam's Bridge the count was 16 support (including nom) and 10 oppose. With a few oppose votes being simple handwaves,[1][2] it still remains established that the usage of "Ram Setu" is more common among English sources as proven by Google News where we see over five times more results for "Ram Setu" than "Adam's Bridge". That is enough for saying that "Ram Setu" is a more common name in use. Where are the sources for claiming the contrary? These two BBC sources[3][4] say "Adam's Bridge" is used only "sometimes" compared to "Ram Setu". The opinion of "oppose" votes was clearly their personal opinion, not backed with any evidence. Furthermore, one of the opposing voter of the discussion is a sock,[5] who re-activated his account after 75 days only to vote on this discussion[6] and he is going to be blocked. I think you should re-consider your decision. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no question that both "Adam's Bridge" and "Ram Setu" are permissible titles for the article. Therefore, there must be a clear consensus to shift the article from a longstanding title. Consensus is not merely a majority; even discounting the asserted sock !vote, there is not a sufficient level of support to effect a change that is not clearly necessitated by policy. bd2412T 04:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I will think about it, but your recent response shows that you think the result was "no consensus". For now can you change "Not moved" to "No consensus"? Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
"Not moved" is the outcome; "no consensus" is the reason for the outcome, which is explained in the close. There is no functional difference between them. bd2412T 12:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
(tps comment) This kind of issue has puzzled me in the past. Turning to WP:THREEOUTCOMES, it appears they do make quite a deal about the difference between 'No consensus' and 'Not moved'. THREEOUTCOMES is a section of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions which claims to be a guideline, though on what authority I don't know. The question was raised last year. The vagueness of the page-moving rules may actually be a benefit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
If there is consensus against a move, I generally say that specifically. bd2412T 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The draft is ready - are you asking me to move the page? bd2412T 11:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the TV series was moved away from the unqualified name, I was just wandering why the 2nd move hadn't been done? Yes it should be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You named/pinged me on your recent post on VPT - it seems you were speaking about an admin that does history merges (sorry, not me). Perhaps re-ping the admin you wanted? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not you? Wow, my mistake - I'll see if I can figure out who I was thinking of. bd2412T 02:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I was thinking of Anthony Appleyard. At least I got one letter right. bd2412T 02:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
DABbing: languages and nationalities / titles and names
I recently created a Category:Title and name disambiguation pages-type article; another subcategory of Category:Disambiguation pages. A senior editor recategorised it as disambig|tndis. That struck me as a thoroughly pointless exercise, and against the spirit of WP:CAT: namely, categorise as precisely as possible, and don't duplicate. IMO there should be a {{tndis}} template (*with no sortkey option...) for pure title/name DAB pages.
Thoughts, as always, welcome. Also as always: it's about the readers, not us. Narky Blert (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I think disambiguation pages are a unique case where they should all be in a single master category, and in applicable subcats. bd2412T 03:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe I have brought this draft to a very acceptable state by following the comments from a few reviewers. I request you to please review the page and move it to the articles section. This is my first article and I am pretty keen on wanting to see it get accepted. Please let me know if it needs any more improvements. Thank you. Ubhasrk (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:GallowsPole-Paige-Plant.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, BD2412. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cooking pot, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Resolved. Cheers! bd2412T 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Should redirects include ratings for class, importance, quality, etc, on the wikiproject boxes on their talk pages? —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I tend to think they should not. Perhaps they should have a project tag with a "redirect" class to fill in for those parameters. bd2412T 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Not everything they do is wrong; I agree with the two WP:RMs below:
Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move (to be more precise, I agreed with your proposed solution before I spotted what User:Crouch, Swale might be up to)
However, this editor may have what may be a longstanding bee-in-bonnet problem. (My father and I agree that in industry, there's something which we call 'plant memory', which is about 7 years. After that time, just about everyone there has forgotten why a change was made, and the same mistake is made again. Both of us at one time occupied, in different companies, the role of The Old Codger Who Has Seen This All Before. It turned out not to be an original observation by either of us - see "Chromium" in Primo Levi's The Periodic Table.)
Could you perhaps don your WP:ADMIN's hat, and take a look? Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And another: Talk:Isle of Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018. Irrespective of the merits of that move: more heat than light, involving a lot of effort by numerous editors. (I keep falling across these almost by accident.) Narky Blert (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not seeing a problem here that calls for admin resolution. Crouch, Swale makes a lot of page move nominations, some of which are common sense, and some of which are not. Those that aren't seem not to fare well. bd2412T 12:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And on those that have had objections, I have tried to explain my reasoning without bludgeoning, the Hamlet one looks like its not going to pass but it wasn't a ridiculous or frivolous nomination. The point of RM is that it is for controversial/questionable requests which Hamlet clearly was. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: You appear to think a bit too much about the wikilinks, I'm a bit unsure why you think we should have a PT at Bury or Hamlet (the latter gets lots of incorrect links) but not one at Callum Wilson which was demonstrated to get a hit rate of 100:1. And I was topic banned from geographical NC and similar, not articles that refer to them, such as the noun Hamlet. And FWIW I fixed over 100 incorrect links to City of Carlisle yesterday and cleared up the Bryher links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
How the HECK did you do that so fast? As in, remove all the links to the Domino Records disambiguation page. I've spent HOURS going over these, and thought I was only about 20% done. Although I work old-fashioned, obviously I need to give in and update a tool set or two. Anyway, many thanks as you've just saved me a lot of time, which I can now use on more enjoyable tasks.... 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 18:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that out when looking at your edit summaries. I've not used it, but I'm thinking it would be useful in certain situations like this. Is it easy to select different articles? In this case, about 95% go to the "current" domino, and what's left usually goes to the 1924 version. A couple went to the 1957 article. Does AWB make it easy to distinguish this? Thanks again! 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 18:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that has to be eyeballed, but it is a very quick process. bd2412T 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I see. I went through your contributions, and could tell by quick preview to which it applied. Only two changes. MUCH easier to do it that way than to do it by hand like I was attempting. Again, many thanks for doing this, and I'll just need to test this out myself. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
We generally do not hide edits unless they involve vulgarity, defamation, or disclosure of personal information. In this case, the assertions seem to be self-refuting. bd2412T 20:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
