User:BD2412/Archive - Tools

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059 Infobox person Greetings. On my talkpage, Jarry1250 (from the Bot Approvals Group) asked if I wanted to add {{Infobox Person}} to the auto-created articles on Federal Judges. I don't really know if it would be a good idea or not. What's your take on it? If so, which fields should I fill in? (If you think it's a good idea, perhaps you could add the infobox to one of the articles Polbot already created, so as to show me exactly how it might be done.) Or do you think it would be superfluous and unnecessary? – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I linked law clerk and had Polbot exclude people on the "done" list, FYI. – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Octagon House disambiguation etc Are you going to fix the correspondence between Talk pages, please? You moved Octagon House (disambiguation) to Octagon House. Talk:Octagon House now redirects to Talk:Octagon house, an entirely different article. I don't know if agree or if i mind about the move. The setup of these pages was discussed at some length. At a minimum, you must restore the Talk page corresponding to Octagon House (disambiguation), please! I am assuming you are an editor and can see and fix the Talk pages and their edit histories. doncram (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Whether the page is at the right name or not is a question of editorial discretion. However, that a base name should not redirect to the (disambiguation) title for that name is a matter of policy, which is what I am presently concerned with. bd2412 T 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (ec) Sorry if i jumped too soon and u were doing it already. Thanks for doing it. Could you please comment in the Talk:Octagon House. There was concern in the last discussion section there, about there being 2 versions whose edit histories needed to be merged. It would help if you could clarify whether you did that or not. Also, as you seem knowledgeable and confident, could you comment there about the general issue of having two articles that just differ by capitalization? It seems to me there's an argument that your move of "Octagon House (disambiguation)" to "Octagon House" should be reversed, because of the existence of "Octagon house". Seeing your comment here, could you please clarify what is the policy you are enforcing (e.g. where exactly in MOSDAB)? For me and for others who were involved and are no doubt still watching. By the way, I have been doing a lot of other fixups of NRHP-related disambiguation pages and joined WikiProject Disambiguation, tho i don't follow much there now. doncram (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, the edit histories are merged. With respect to the policy, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page states that "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation). It is also acceptable to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to a disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page." This is the basis for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for doing the edit history merge. Since I don't understand the policy and/or your interpretation of it, i just opened a discussion section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#disambig when dab would have same name except capitalization as another. Let's continue there. Thanks! doncram (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Images and reply No problem. And just so you know I don't have a problem with the FJC, its just that its one of many useful sources we can use. I've used it many times and cite it often, but its only a starting point. You don't get GAs such as judge Matthew Deady just from the FJC. FYI, I nominated your commons upload of the Pioneer Courthouse image, as I uploaded the pic a year ago. The only difference is this version has been cropped to remove the caption, rotated slightly to fix a slight slant, and the color adjusted to reduce the yellownish. So you don't duplicate any others, if you are dealing with Oregon courts, see Commons:Category:Courthouses in Oregon or ask me as there are some others on Wikipedia and in Category:Images of Oregon or its sub cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I have concurred in the deletion of my upload, and changed the image in the D. Ore. article accordingly. bd2412 T 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Disambiguation pages with links from templates Just wondering if you might take a quick look at this discussion, specifically the middle couple of posts in the thread, and let me know if you'd like me to back off. I'm hoping it's all good, but I don't want to tread anywhere my presence isn't desired. Thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Chorus sometimes means choir In articles describing concert-hall music, such as Belshazzar's Feast (Walton), the term chorus is always understood to mean a choir. I should have linked it direct to choir in the first place. I don't see any other articles that you have used AWB to change to link to Refrain in this way, but can you go back and verify? David Brooks (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, now I'm equally unsure! bd2412 T 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I have three questions I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)