Status: Throwing a party to celebrate my 200,000th edit. bd2412 T ^(e)

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

Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind:

1. I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek").
2. It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page.

Cheers! BD2412

Talk page archives

Prior to June 1, 2009, I divided my archived pages by topic, rather than by date:

• User:BD2412/Archive - Law the law, or articles on law-related topics (cases, doctrines, judges, professors, etc).
• User:BD2412/Archive - Articles all other Wikipedia articles.
• User:BD2412/Archive - Deletion AfD votes, policies, and mechanics.
• User:BD2412/Archive - RfA Requests for Administration and Requests for Comment.
• User:BD2412/Archive - Tools Wikitools (templates, categories, disambigs, etc.) and Wikiprojects (Disambiguation repair, Red link repair, Duplicated section repair, etc.).
• User:BD2412/Archive - Vandalism vandalism-related discussions, particularly requests to deal with vandals.
• User:BD2412/Archive - Miscellaneous everything else (thank you's, screw you's, my signature, jokes, comments, etc).

Beginning on June 1, 2009 I began archiving solely by date, because it's just easier.

• User talk:BD2412/First dated archive.

• I archive frequently - if you post a comment here, do not be surprised if it has been put away by the next day. I reserve the right to delete frivolous posts.

• My archiving is done primarly by the cut and paste method, although I occasionally archive long pages by page move. If you're looking for the edit history of a comment in my archives, it will likely be in the edit history of a page to which I moved a long archive.

[edit] Radical factory

Hi BD. Looking into a discussion of deleting the redirect 廾, I noticed that the only link to it (except those related to the discussion) is from the radical factory in your userspace. Several other entries in your table also have inter-language redirects or disambiguation pages with little or no linkage. Would you care to comment on the discussion or the general situation? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any of those redirects, that I can recall. My view is that each one of the several hundred base radicals should have an article discussing not only the meaning of a given character, but also the history of its development (much like letters of the English alphabet). bd2412 T 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I only pointed it out because it looked like you would have a well informed opinion, as indeed you do. Your ultimate objective for such pages is a good one. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I dig that. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:AprilMarch.jpg)

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Something interesting

Greetings BD, just dropping by, thought you may find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Legal threat by National Portrait Gallery, London of interest. Prodego ^talk 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll see if I can address this tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst you're at it, please cast your eye over Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which I've just expanded. I've not touched the case opinion in the infobox, but given that there's now a lot more information as to what the judgement actually was (a point on which several people seem to be ill-informed), it needs at least to be double-checked. I'm also not happy about the prior content, that I've retained, that seems to be performing an original analysis of the Meshwerks v. Toyota and Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp judgements, rather than a sourced analysis.

    Schiffer Publishing vs. Chronicle Books probably belongs on your list, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Empty pages

A while back, you asked me:

Would it be possible to generate a list of ALL pages that contain, say, five characters or less (since there can be no meaningful page with fewer than that amount). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible.  :-) A surprisingly long list, accurate approximately as of the timestamp on this message, is at User:R'n'B/Empty pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I should have specified more clearly, I was looking for pages with at least one (but no more than five) characters - there are many legitimate reasons why a page could be blank - and I'm equally interested in User and User talk pages that meet that criteria. But your list has enough to keep me occupied for a while. bd2412 T 00:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh; you should be focusing on remembering the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel, instead of this stuff!  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That stuff I have down. But I will be focusing on legal doctrines for the next few weeks! bd2412 T 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, now see User:R'n'B/Very short pages. For the bar exam, you don't need to know the difference between zero and one, but for Wikipedia, you do.  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates with red links

As part of my continuing efforts to distract you from studying :-), I've updated the raw data for this project - the list of currently updated subpages is at User:RussBot/Templates with red links. (Actually, I did it using my new Toolserver account as a learning exercise to see how to use the database mirror access; there are a small number of false positives that I can't explain, but it looks fairly accurate overall.) Is there any reason not to delete the older subpages that are no longer valid? Also, how frequently do you think it would be helpful to update this on an ongoing basis? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not falling for that! :-)

I'll address your questions after the Bar exam (I'll be home from the exam, which is in a rather inconveniently distant city, on July 31). bd2412 T 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Break a leg! (Which state?) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginia. I'm in the DC area, and the bar is in Roanoke. bd2412 T 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I'm confused about the function of this edit. Is such a redirect standard? -Silence (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It keeps us from having to correct intentional links to disambig pages, and takes them out of the "what links here" queue for articles to be corrected. It also informs the reader that the page on the other end of the link is a disambig. bd2412 T 00:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter function, though, could be served by a piped link. And most dab pages X that aren't named '(disambiguation)' don't have corresponding redirects from 'X (disambiguation)' (which would be very silly, since no one's gonna look for 'X (disambiguation)' before 'X').

Is this policy new? Is there a page specifying it? I've always been under the impression that ideally one would never use 'disambiguation', either in links or in article titles, except as required for the same reason parenthetical qualifiers are ever required in article titles: to distinguish from other, real pages. Otherwise the default would be 'X (disambiguation)' and not 'X' for dab pages not based off of articles called 'X'. -Silence (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the redirect is mandatory, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The unpiped link was the subject of a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Adding a rule, where I was overruled in proposing that the link be piped. bd2412 T 01:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Rollback should only be used for clearly unproductive edits. Using it to revert another admin on a system message, especially when there's no consensus either way for the change, is rather inappropriate. Mr.Z-man 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to risk making a new edit and messing things up - I was just aiming to restore it exactly as it was before. No disrespect intended to Prodego, for whom I have nothing but respect. bd2412 T 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BD2412 can revert my edits any time. :) Prodego ^talk 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removing info from a talk page

Hi, I'm puzzled by this edit, as I don't see how it comes under "other minor cleanup tasks". Could you explain? PamD (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is me lazily neglecting to change edit summaries. Those fall under "blank ancient IP talk page messages per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages". They come up in this context because those IP talk pages include the disambiguation link. bd2412 T 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Custom House (Baltimore, Maryland)

Hi and thanks again for making the tremendous GSA pages so accessible to us. I just wanted to check what the protocol is for merging the articles. I see you did something with the U.S. Custom House (Baltimore, Maryland) page that I don't quite follow. Any explanation for me will be quite helpful.

Best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply merged the edit history for the material in my userspace with the article in the mainspace, so that the complete edit history would be in a single place. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] intentional disambiguation links

Hi, i noticed your edit here, and have seen one or two like it before. But I don't understand the benefit, and it appears wrong offhand, to me, to link to '"Foo (disambigation)"' when '"Foo" (disambiguation)' links directly to the right place. Can you please point me to a guideline section or previous discussion that applies? Or, let's discuss somewhere central, like at WikiProject Disambiguation. Please advise. doncram (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones". On disambig pages, this has the added effect of alerting the reader to the fact that the link leads to a disambig page. bd2412 T 01:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. I've created a few thousand links the wrong way then, oh well. :) doncram (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removing vandalism warnings from IP user talk pages

Why are you doing this? Your edit summaries say "Fixing links to disambiguation pages, improving links, other minor cleanup tasks using AWB)". Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Same question, three sections up. These are justified under Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages". They come up in this context because the IP talk pages include the disambiguation link being resolved. bd2412 T 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you

is your name Marina? I am making that conclusion because you uploaded the image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.89.201 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested the image - one of hundreds of images that I've uploaded - and was granted permission to use it. My identity is well established to this community, and if you review my edit history you'll quickly realize the absurdity of your "conclusion". bd2412 T 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the 'Dragan' disambiguation page! I'd have done a better job of creating it, and saved you the work, but I'm still learning the ropes. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The sixteenth amendment was "not" ratified.

Who the hell are you to call me a moron? I am neither of the things you assert me to be, and the fact that you are accusing me as such shows your narrow mindedness. It is obvious that this article is skewed to inherently make it seem like tax protester arguments are ludicrous, and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that you pay taxes and may be upset about the fact that the law used to justify it may not even be "properly ratified" as you so tastefully put it is the only reason you would react in this way. This is a wikipedia article about arguments which are reasons people assert they don't have to pay their taxes. You are the very thing that keeps wikipedia back and discourages people from making edits. I know your response will be something along the line of "I don't want you to make edits, so it is okay," but let it be known that a Circuit judge has made a comment in one of this decisions that the sixteenth amendment was NOT properly ratified in his research, and the fact that it has been around for such a long time and enforced so many times has made that a moot point because it is enforced as if it was really ratified, and the sources I referenced have mentioned that, and you most likely did not even read them. One of the sources even was against the "tax protester arguments," and I was trying to present two points of view that asserted the same thing. You, my friend, are the moron. I will continue to not pay my taxes and use public services that you are under the ruse your income taxes pay for. Paraplegicemu (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] High society

Thanks for moving this - did you notice that there was a formal Request to Move? Could you do the formal closing of that discussion, please? Thanks. PamD (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I did not realize that - I moved it based on its inclusion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. I'll attend to the discussion now. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Wikimedia2

Template:Wikimedia2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you

Hey BDA, hope you are doing well. I have a bit of a legal question, and I was hoping you could shed some light on the situation. this license template seems to me to be self contradictory. The second provision, "you avoid using words that can be considered offensive" appears to contradict the terms of CC-BY. I was wondering if you could explain the legal situation with both of those two provisions on the template, and how they interact with CC-BY 2.5. [1] Thanks! (for more info: [2]. Prodego ^talk 05:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just off to bed - will look tomorrow! bd2412 T 05:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much - good night! Prodego ^talk 05:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A license is basically a document saying "I own the copyright in this work, but I promise that I will not bring an action for copyright infringement if you to use the work according to these rules". In this case, if our use of this contributor's image was accompanied by "words that can be considered offensive", then it would be an infringement. However, "can be considered offensive" is a very broad phrase, as anything could conceivably be considered offensive to somebody, under the right conditions. The copyright owner could point to any word and correctly say that it could be considered offensive by someone, under some circumstance. In short, the license is no license at all, and the promise is illusory. bd2412 T 14:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No license at all sounds quite incompatible with commons. :) Mind if I link to your response at that discussion at the commons village pump? Alternately, if you would like to comment there... Prodego ^talk 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment there. Thanks! bd2412 T 16:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Perry Shields

Hiya, B.D. I never had this article on my watchlist (indeed had never read it before). It has, however, recently shown up on my watchlist, which leads me to believe that somehow links to one of your (myriad) archived pages. Or something... Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably started writing it in a temp userspace, which may have originated as archive space - I do that for articles that are not ready for prime time, just use a temp space as a sandbox to rough them out until I'm ready to really start working on them. bd2412 T 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Michal Nebyla (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I created a redirect, not an article. If the article is deleted, the redirect should remain. If there is any concern that the article will be recreated, the redirect should be protected. bd2412 T 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your move relating to Tiddler

I was just wondering whether you were aware that a requested move discussion was ongoing Talk:Tiddler#Requested move. Your move seems to have accidently pre-empted the result of the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IBus

Thanks for fixing my rushed job on IBus! Widefox (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Cruciate ligament

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cruciate ligament, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] New request

Here you go -- the list may be a bit longer than you were expecting: User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation redirects/001. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Template:Law unref

I have nominated Template:Law unref (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Law-related articles lacking sources

I have nominated Category:Law-related articles lacking sources (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Law unref

Template:Law unref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bad disambiguation redirects

Hi, I saw your User talk:R'n'B#A quick and dirty request for disambig redirects missing spaces and, just out of curiosity, ran a quick search on the 14 September database dump that I've been playing with. You have already deleted all but two of the 75 such redirects that existed at the time of the dump. (Actually, R'n'B deleted one of them himself.) Anyhow, the two survivors are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 3031(disambiguation) → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 3031 (band) which looks legitimate and Oak Hill Country Club(disambiguation). which RussBot presumably missed because of the period. Cheers! -- ToE^T 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the bad one - the link to the deletion discussion is fine, as it redirects people looking for a deletion discussion on the disambig page to the page where that discussion took place. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If I run across other obvious "technical misspellings", such as The Field Where I Died (The X-Files episode -- missing the ")" -- do they need to go to RfD if they are stretching the bounds of "recent"? (No history to be preserved; remnant of move to correct form.) I usually try to track down the author to get them to request a WP:CSD#G7, but often, as in this case, they are no longer active. -- ToE^T 04:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#R3, implausible typos. Unlikely that someone would errantly type exactly that again. bd2412 T 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's the "recently created" part that's a problem. -- ToE^T 15:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(Butting in...) There is no precise definition of "recently"; it's a judgment call. After all, in view of the length of time humans have been using written language, everything on Wikipedia is extremely "recent." :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices

They are trying to delete this. Please comment. 13:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

• I redirected it to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Roman Catholic Justices, which covers everything anyway. bd2412 T 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not "cover anything anyway. You lost all that content, including the chart and all of the references I had just put in today becuase of the threatened deletion. This is contrary to the procedure that was in the notice. It was done summarily and without due warning: this notice said that if a protest was filed it would not be deleted. An objection was filed. It was deleted. This is plainly wrong. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

I've added the chart, and am in the process of moving over some of the refs. The table is a bit much. bd2412 T 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The table was useful data. It could be a link, or a hidden table, which somebody could click on. Just a constructive thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Okay, feel free to put it in as a hidden table, but if you do so, I'd appreciate if you make a similar table for the Jewish Justices for parity. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would love to do that, but it's plainly beyond my knowledge/skill level. I agree with you that Jewish justices would benefit from the same treatment. Maybe the original author of the table knows how to do that? My thought is it would not clutter the article. User: Berean Hunter did quite a few tables like this concerning various lighthouse articles. I know he's under personal time constraints right now but . . . he is very helpful. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Teach yourself - Help:Table. 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

If you could be so kind to delete Talk:What_is_a_Search_Engine; a CSD article with no context. Thanks A8UDI 18:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Knife fight

The article Knife fight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic, lacking any real constructive information

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reconsider the static (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States magistrate judges

BD2412, I am curious: has any consensus (ever) been reached about United States magistrate judges? Is the fact that a person is a U.S. magistrate judge notable enough that an individual biography for each and every federal magistrate judge is notable? (as is the case with Article III district and appeals-court judges) Or are federal magistrate judges generally considered non-notable unless they achieve notability for some other reason (e.g., for some non-judicial achievement, or for being nominated to be a district judge)? What are your thoughts on this? Reply here or on my talk page. And thanks for all your hard work -- you are an incredible asset to the Wikipedia community; I have a great deal of respect for the work that you do. Jarvishunt (talk) 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Side-splitter

BD, you definitely know how to get a laugh out of me. List of federal judges appointed by Rutherford B. Hayes! All I can add is that it is a beautiful article to look at. Very nice work. (However, I would like to see all of the judges recreated in life-size, made entirely of Saranwrap and wire armitures.) Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Newgate Technology

I reverted your edit to Newgate Technology because the automated tool totally broke what little referencing is there, and we're waiting for the AfD on this spam article: The ambiguous link to NHS is on purpose from the author, and we're leaving it: That page asserts that there is no such thing as NHS of Northern Ireland, proving the author's rather lame and obvious peacock attempt. I quote from the NHS disam page:

Health and Care NI, the health service for Northern Ireland (which does not use the names "NHS" or "National Health Service")

Further to the above: I added the references. The use of in-list references has been enabled on the English Wikipedia (see Help:Citations#List-defined_references) - for future reference, if you see the following:

{{reflist|refs=

(references)

}}

you do not need to add {{reflist}}. If you do, you break the references. Please make sure that you do a preview before accepting changes! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on ref changes. bd2412 T 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Magistrates

BD, per my query above, what do you think: do current (and past) United States magistrate judges warrant separate biographies? Or are does that level of position (with some exceptions) fail a notability test? What are your thoughts? Among those of us who have worked long and hard on judicial biographies, I think a consensus pretty clearly has been reached that all U.S. district judges (and now, nominees) are notable in and of themselves (and any AfDs on them would fail). Would you say the same of magistrate judges? I am very interested in your thoughts on this. Please reply here when you get a moment. Thanks so much! Jarvishunt (talk) 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll address this question now in the discussion at WP:USCJ. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Are U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judges inherently notable?. bd2412 T 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Andrwsc#List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area in excess of 1,000,000 km²‎

You wrote:

Good point. I could make simplified versions that would not look as fuzzy. bd2412 T 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote:

Please explain how you would do this. I am quite keen to learn.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would only need to download the image, open it in Photoshop, resize it there and airbrush over any kinks. Since it would be a very small image for a very small use, it would not need to be scalable to a larger size. bd2412 T 03:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page de-orphaned, how does orphan template get removed?

Hi, BD.

I de-orphaned this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_potty_training_method but don't know what to do next. Do I click on the History tab and undo your orphan text? Disambiguation is also mentioned on the same line. Both disambiguation and orphaning have been fixed. Please advise, thanks!Manyhats (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just edit the page and delete the orphan template on top. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for your help.Manyhats (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good job...

starting List of United States federal judges by longevity of service. I can think of a couple more that qualify, and will add them when I have time, but...

Should the list be sorted by total tenure (including senior status)? I believe so, because it's possible for a judge to sit on a bench for only twenty years and have senior status for another twenty (though that would make them pretty old). I know there's no "page ownership", but as you're basically the only person who's edited the page, you would be the one with the most input.

Cheers! Star Garnet (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with senior status is that a judge can (or at least could, in the past) do virtually nothing judicial and still be in senior status. I think the rules on workload and availability have changed a bit over the years, but the only way to be sure that a judge was actually hearing cases is if they were active to the end. bd2412 T 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that disqualify the four judges from Browning downward? And even if a judge is still "active", there have been times when judges have been incapacitated for up to a decade while being "active". Star Garnet (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#List of United States federal judges by longevity of service for exposure to wider comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] proposition

I see you have been using AWB with the edit summary "fixing links to disambiguation pages" to change proposition to pipe to proposition (philosophy). But proposition is not a dab page (unless you're using a version of the database over 4 months old) and the latter just redirects to the former.

I have reverted your change on Affirmation, a page I have on my watchlist, and I suspect you may need to revert this change on all the others.

I you think that proposition should be moved to proposition (philosophy) (so that it is no longer the primary topic of the dab page), you may propose this using the WP:RM process, but these changes should not be made before the move is approved.

Many thanks,

--NSH001 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it is indeed an older version. I'll take it out of my rotation! bd2412 T 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calbuco problem

I saw that you moved Calbuco (disambiguation) to Calbuco. Now I want to ask you to revert your edits because the content of Calbuco had been moved Calbuco (disambiguation) to "free" Calbuco so that Calbuco, Los Lagos can be moved to Calbuco (se talk pago of Calbuco). Dentren | ^Talk 19:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dentren | ^Talk 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - cheers! bd2412 T 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for moving POTS

Thanks for taking care of the move of POTS (disambiguation) to POTS. I know cleanup moves are one of those usually-thankless admin chores, so I like to make my appreciation explict when I'm involved in one. The minor stuff adds up to a lot. Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bowden (surname)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bowden (surname), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Bowdon. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The material was already in the disambiguation page, Bowden; I only moved it to a separate page. bd2412 T 17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Now deleted. bd2412 T 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fascicle or Fascicle (disambiguation)

I understand why you reverted my move of Fascicle to Fascicle (disambiguation). However, it's not quite as simple as the WP policy you quoted. There are now two pages, Fascicle and Fasciculus. The first is a disambiguation page; the second is a real article. However, the first says that the terms 'Fascicle' and 'Fasciculus' are synonyms. If this is correct, then both should lead to the same page, surely? If it's not correct, then there should be two articles, one on each term, with cross-links and/or links to a disambiguation page. As it stands now, I think it's unhelpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty clear from looking at Fasciculus that this should be a disambig page also. bd2412 T 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. In which case, the two can be merged, which I've done. (This is what I should have done in the first place, on reflection.) You might want to check that I've done the merge correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that they necessarily need to be merged, but they are sufficiently similar that this is an acceptable solution. bd2412 T 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

*(and nicely done). bd2412 T 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates with red links

Is the current WP:TRL database dump the same as the January 2008 database dump? If not, do the all of the pages in the special sections of WP:TRL need to have their names changed to reflect the change from the January 2008 database dump to the current database dump? (e.g. Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-MLB changed to Wikipedia:Templates with red links/MLB) - Basketball123456 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The pages do need to be moved. The intent going forward is that when a new database dump is made, it will just over-write the old one at the same address, so we do not pile up obsolete and redundant lists. bd2412 T 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking IP talk pages

Watch for templates at the top. See [3] --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the template at the top particularly matters if no one has made any objectionable edits from the page in over two years. IP addresses are dynamic, and can change from time to time, and even if they remain stable, there's no point in keeping anything on a page which relates to an IP address from which no one edits. bd2412 T 12:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MarmadukePercy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Removed prod from User:Photoatb

I have removed the dated PROD template that you placed on User:Photoatb. The user appears to have been using her/his user page as a sandbox. In addition, PROD is intended for use on articles, not on User pages. Cnilep (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have been a bit harsh in assessing, but it looks to me like an article on a band of borderline notability. bd2412 T 23:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Indiana Militia (Disambiguation)

The article Indiana Militia (Disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned and unnecessary redirect

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chuunen Baka (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)