User talk:BD2412

Status: Bar review. 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] agreed ...

i agree with your last post RE: the fine line on the near-term direction for how legal Wikipedia articles should be expanded. I'm wondering if you've had a chance to see my (unrelated) proposal [1] at the village pump ... it can't be terrible enough of a proposal to have nobody speaking out in its defense ... Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 04:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Qwest Field

Nice work on the recent clean up on Qwest Field!Cptnono (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I take no credit whatsoever, I did nothing but click a button. bd2412 T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating Genesis

Hi, thanks for disambiguating "Genesis", but I don't think Genesis (band) is ever the intended meaning at Bible translations by language! ;-) +Angr 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that shouldn't have happened - my editing tool is set up to link to Book of Genesis unless there are keywords there that would only come up with the band, guess that wasn't foolproof. bd2412 T 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary hypothesis

Hi, and thanks for your cleanup on documentary hypothesis. Unfortunately something has gone wrong with the diagram which illustrates the article - it's lost its legend. I have no idea how to fix it, and so I'd be grateful if you could have a look. PiCo (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

BD -- Thanks very much for your good work updating links on the parshah pages. -- Dauster (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have done more excellent cleanup work on the parshah pages. You have provided a real service. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Just out of curiosity -- why are you changing "[[Image:" to "[[File:"? I saw you did this as Gottfried van Swieten. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am fixing disambiguation links. However, since Wikipedia no longer has an "Image" namespace, this is on my list of automated secondary repairs that I do while disambiguating. bd2412 T 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Roseland

Thank you for your help in salvaging this article from a premature prodder. Unschool 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't do anything but fix a disambig link and a header cap. bd2412 T 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I had thought you were the one who had removed the prod. Thanks anyway for your work. Cheers. Unschool 04:34, 29 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] question

Hi, you seem to know what you're doing, but I'm confused and curious. why would you do this? You created a redirect, then changed the link to go to that redirect, but used piping to keep the appearance the same. I don't see the benefit here. I don't see the harm, either, but there must have been a reason? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The benefit is that (in a general sense) it makes it easier to find and fix unintentional links to disambiguation pages when we can take intentional links out of the mix. bd2412 T 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting it, sorry. How does doing that "take intentional links out of the mix"? What mix? It says "(disambiguation page)" right next to the link, and the piping means that no additional information is provided to the user by the change. ? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, have you done much disambiguation work? The problem is that people writing articles frequently will write something like "the car has a nine volt battery" or "the thermometer contained mercury" - which are of course mistakes because battery and mercury are disambiguation pages. So we who work at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links are forever trying to chop down the hundreds of thousands of such errant links, which usually requires us to generate a list of pages that link to the "What links here" page. If a bunch of pages have intentional links to the disambig page, then having those link go through a redirect which makes it clear that the links to the disambig page are intentional, that saves us the time of looking through those links while trying to find genuinely bad links. This is so much of a problem that I've started a special project just to find and fix intentional links to disambig pages coming from other disambig pages. bd2412 T 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see. Because no one would accidentally link to Foo (disambiguation), you don't have to check those when fixing links to the disambiguation page Foo, saving time. I do some non-automated disambiguation work (indeed, that's why Channel One is on that page, and why 1 (disambiguation) is on my watchlist), so I understand the time savings. But what about the time expenditure? You still had to expend time and effort figuring out if the link I put in the disambiguation you changed was intentional? I may have to ponder that for a while, I might be wrong, but it seems like you're spending a nickel to save a nickel. In fact, if you have to create Foo (disambiguation) and make those changes, it seems like you're spending a nickel to save four cents. I guess the net benefit is long term, so that the next person who comes along in a year and fixes links to Foo that have built up in the interim doesn't have to do that same work again, yes? Anyway, thank you very much for the explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - disambiguation link fixing is a perpetual chore, so this is for the very long term. bd2412 T 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying

Thanks for the clean-up on Elihu. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		message MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I am absolutely humbled that you think that of me! bd2412 T 01:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Thanks for moving Barack (disambiguation) to its proper place. Can you move Talk:Barack (disambiguation) to Talk:Barack? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! bd2412 T 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)