User:BD2412/Archive 011

{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #cef2e0; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

Catch 22 holes in California Law
Hi BD2412

You've done some amazing work, especially in the area of law.

I found you through a disambiguation you did on a page I worked on, and read your user page.

This may be something you are interested in examining:

I was involved with a real estate lawsuit. I was the defendant, and a realtor was suing me for going around our agreement to sell to someone who had looked at my house while it was under a listing agreement. But, the buyer didn't buy, and the listing ran out.

About six months later, the buyer approached me to buy the house directly, without realtors. After some price negotiation, I sold it to her.

A year later, the realtor sued me saying that the buyer and me conspired to make a deal during the term of the listing agreement and he was owed the commission.

The contract called for non-binding arbitration, which found decisively in my favor and ordered the realtor to pay for my legal expenses.

As was his right, the realtor asked for a "trial de novo" (I think that's the right spelling), which set aside the arbitration ruling and we proceeded to trial.

As the actual trial date approached, the realtor withdrew from the case. My lawyer said that the arbitration ruling would then be enforced. The realtor objected and actually won a ruling on the matter in a local court, saying that since the arbitration was dropped, the ruling could not be enforced, and the matter was settled.

I had to appeal to a higher court, which ruled in my favor and ordered the lower court judge to reinstate the arbitration ruling.

Even though I won, there was no law on the California books that stated that if you withdraw from a trial de novo, the arbitration ruling would then be enforced - I guess I was just lucky that the higher court relied on common sense.

Is this interesting to you? I never knew how to go about bringing it to legislator's attention, but think it should be addressed.

Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good setup for a law school exam, but frankly I have no particular interest in real estate law. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Southeast (disambiguation)
So, I have come to you to talk about a contentious move request where you made a decision that was impossible to make the right choice in, where emotions ran high and the right decision to make seemed hard to find... yes, of course I am referring to your move close at Talk:Southeast (disambiguation). I don't think that there was any consensus to move at all--we didn't ever get any information from the nominator about what to do with those pages. I'm not sure it's the right call--someone looking for, say, Northeast (film) isn't just one or two clicks away, they actually can't get to the film from Northeast any more. If someone is looking for, say, Southwest Airlines, they have the same problem. I'm thinking of taking it to move review--I do so with no bitterness or discontent or criticism at all, I just don't think the request was clear enough to have any consensus at all from it. Red Slash 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "consensus" that I took away from the discussion was that the four links should have the same treatment, i.e., they didn't have to go home, but they couldn't stay in the bar (or, in this case, two in and two out). An alternative that might resolve the problem you raise here is to have them redirect to Boxing the compass instead of to a section of that page, and to have redirect templates for the four redirects on the top of the page.
 * I see what you did there. Your suggestion here would be an improvement... we'll see. I may do that and then just put in a separate move request for Southwest--because of the airline, I don't think there's a primary topic. Red Slash 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be a bit creative about it, putting the hatnotes in the target section, and using a separate one for Southwest Airlines. I have no opinion on whether there is a primary topic for Southwest, but it seems to me that all other uses are named for the compass direction. bd2412  T 03:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After thinking it over, I think I will file a move review. You continue to have my full respect. Red Slash 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Southeast
An editor has asked for a Move review of Southeast. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Red Slash 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Regarding Talk:Chelsea Manning, where, exactly, did this discussion take place, and who were the admins involved? I am an admin myself, but I am fully aware that I am not Arbcom, and that admins have no more authority than any other editor regarding community consensus. We don't make decisions behind closed doors. Unless the discussion is made public, the move should be reverted pending consensus from a wider community discussion. If that discussion leads to no consensus, then so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Disregard - Kww informed me it's in a subpage, Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request. I needed to know for the purpose of answering an OTRS ticket that suggests a back-room decision was made, and it wasn't clear from the talk page where the discussion took place. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that my thought process with respect to this matter is written out at Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request analysis by BD2412. The edit history of that page basically contains the entire evolution of my thinking on the matter, which I believe is clearly and directly reflected in the closure explanation. There is also some discussion on the talk page of that subpage. Of course, given the magnitude of strife that this process engendered, there is also discussion spread across a dozen different policy pages, noticeboards, and user talk pages (including Jimbo's page). Cheers! bd2412  T 12:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin's barnstar
Many thanks for this. Much appreciated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Distal
Hey, BD2412. Since you are still performing disambiguation cleanup regarding distal, and more recently proximal, someone probably should have told you about the Distal#Redirect discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I have actually just finished. bd2412  T 03:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks
I was pleasantly surprised by your kind words and I accept your award with thanks. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 04:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, I can't believe that it has been over 7 years and half years since you nominated you me adminship. I thanked you then and I thank you again now. Very kind regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi BD2412, I noticed you seemed to be online, so I wanted to ply you with a question. In days past, I disclosed much more private information on my userpage than I am comfortable with doing today. Several months ago, at my request, another admin deleted some of the posts in question. Now I'm an admin myself and would basically like to nuke the rest. I'm thinking that since almost no one else has ever edited my page (this might not even involve any such edits), I could just do this under WP:CRD 5, since this would essentially be a G7 matter if applied to pages. Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation for you? Since this is all in good faith, I'd probably be understand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be de-sysopped or otherwise sanctioned for doing so. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it is perfectly permissible to delete edit history from your userspace that reflects personal details. (As you can probably see, my own user page only has a history going back to 2011; I have occasionally archived my user page and talk pages, and have on occasion moved something over the archived space, deleting all of the underlying revisions, just in the course of organizing my userspace). bd2412  T 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even think to move a page over the current userpage. You'd think with all the time I spend at WP:RM I'd think of that. Thanks for the opinion. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Zürich
Hi there! I missed the RM→Zürich recently, but I was wondering if you could do the honours and help move Category:Zurich to Category:Zürich and its sub-cats too. I'm sorry if I'm dishing out too much work to an already busy admin; but many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the RM for the city necessarily translates to the categories automatically following. I would put it on WP:CFD and see if anyone objects. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As an eponymous category, there's no reason it shouldn't actually be renamed. As for the sub-cats, I've done my best at CfD. Hope I didn't miss out any technical steps as that was the biggest multi-nomination I've ever created. Jared Preston (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is quite something. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Shimukappu name change
Hi. Why was Shimukappu (unique title) changed to Shimukappu, Hokkaido? Surely this is against normal practice?  Klein zach  09:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall that this was part of a mass renaming of article with Hokkaidō titles to Hokkaido titles, which included moving the handful of little-known place names in Hokkaido but without the prefecture name for the sake of consistency. Beyond that I can not remember. I was not involved in the discussion, I only carried out the moves. bd2412  T 12:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Do we know where I can find out which other pages were involved?  Klein zach  14:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess that all of the moved Hokkaido pages will be reflected in my move log from January 2013. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find them there. Those moves all seem to be of the 'X, Hokkaidō to X, Hokkaido' kind, I don't see any 'Y to Y, Hokkaido' examples. Any ideas?  Klein  zach  14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it is likely that these pages were never at titles other than those containing "Hokkaido". I note that I did not move Shimukappu to Shimukappu, Hokkaido; rather, I moved Shimukappu, Hokkaidō to Shimukappu, Hokkaido. It appears that the page was initially created at Shimukappu, Hokkaido, in 2005. Therefore, you would have to ask the original page creator why it was not created at Shimukappu. bd2412  T 14:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Sorry if my initial question was misleading.  Klein zach  00:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin speech
You made the right decision on Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago in what was probably a politicized environment. These are the kind of hard decisions Admins make that often are criticized but it is clear that you weighed all the factors that were evident. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I wouldn't say that I really made a decision at all. The community made a decision, I merely determined what it was. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The 100 move
Are you happy if I close the discussion on this move and do it? As I understand the rules it's ok for any editor to do this given there is full support and 10 days have elapsed. Your listing under requested moves was fine though I wasn't exactly sure why it had to be listed there as it's not complicated - there's only one archive page. But if you want to complete it that's fine. 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt that the move request was potentially controversial. As the proposer, I would rather not be the one to carry out the move, so please feel free to go ahead with it. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, have done. Have changed most front line links. Doubtless some mistakes! Chris55 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party
The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see how this can help. I think that it is generally a bad idea to name the closing admin or admins of a discussion as parties to disputes between active participants in the discussion. Unless the arbitrators feel that there is some particular insight that I can offer with respect to those disputes, I do not intend to participate in the arbitration. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inevitable that at least one arbitrator wants to censure us. It's only worth worrying about if it looks like it will gain support.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I just proposed that you all be commended for volunteering to take on this particular bucket of poop, and that's as someone disagreeing with your result - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess if I'm needed for anything, I can be pinged or summoned via my talk page. I have intentionally stayed out of all discussion of this topic, and intend to keep it that way if possible. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is the same. bd2412  T 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! bd2412  T 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Stump v. Sparkman and Harris v. Harvey
Might you be able to help me find someone to answer a question about the law in Talk:Stump v. Sparkman? The latter was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Judge Harvey was denied judicial immunity for actions he took outside the courtroom. This is the opposite of Stump v. Sparkman, in which Judge Stump was found to be protected. Harris v. Harvey shows that judicial immunity has limits in fact, not just in theory. As such, I think it makes it easier for people to understand the principle. It also is interesting from the perspective of the history of race relations in the US, because Harris was an African-American police Lieutenant. Judge Harvey gave interviews to news media in which he allegedly made blatantly racist comments. For those comments and other actions outside his jurisdiction, he was found not to be protected by judicial immunity.

However, I don't understand the extent to which that decision is precedential, and I'd like that clarified before inserting a brief section on Harris v. Harvey to the article on Stump v. Sparkman. I'm writing you, because you made the most recent 3 edits to that article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll have a look this weekend. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13
Notifying all users that were involved in the same discussion a few weeks ago which involved deletion of this category. Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Maicon Sisenando RM
Hi there. You participated in a move-discussion for Maicon Sisenando in February 2013. I've now opened a new RM, where I propose that this footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I hope you take the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[STATE] lawyer categories
I'd appreciate your input here, if you have an opinion. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

National Jiaotong University
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on National Jiaotong University, appears to be directly copied from http://readtiger.com/wkp/en/Beijing_Jiaotong_University. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on National Jiaotong University if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The cited website is itself a Wikipedia mirror, copied from the same Wikipedia page that I copied this text from, Beijing Jiaotong University. Please see the whois page for the cited website, which shows that it has only existed since May 2012, whereas this language has been in Wikipedia since at least as early as November, 2011. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrupted notice
I got a corrupted ping from you marked 16 hours ago, but with a link to "no page". Any idea what you might have been doing so that I can write a bug report?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that this is because I was archiving drafts in my userspace, and ended up overwriting my talk page, which I then restored. (In fact, it's about time that I archive this page again - usually I aim for about 50k per archive). bd2412  T 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete
Hi BD2412, regarding your decline to delete that article, I asked for it to be deleted because I created it by mistake when I tried to tag the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article to be merged into Modified Newtonian dynamics. I typed a letter capitalized (the 'd' in dynamics) and apparently that created a whole new article (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which is the one I tagged for deletion. I just removed the merge tag from this last article so now it redirects to the correct one. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm new to TW. Cheers. Gaba (talk)  19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine - that sort of thing happens all the time, even to experienced users. bd2412  T 19:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now we know why we are parties
The drafting admin is proposing that we violated BLP as a "finding of fact".&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... reasonable doubt
Greetings BD2412. I'm in the process of preparing an AN/I regarding possible trolling, etc., and as part of my "investigation", am following up a couple of loose ends. I noticed that back in 2005 you were in contact with a user who seems to have retired. While it is, admittedly, a long shot, I'd like to know if you had any doubt as to said user's response and bona fides. Sorry to hassle you, but this stuff happens. --Technopat (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I never had any reason to doubt that claim. There is a certain ebb and flow to thinking like a lawyer that is generally obtained through years of law school and years of practice. This editor sounded like he had that. bd2412  T 16:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. --Technopat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

National Jiaotong University
Hi. I saw the note you got from MadmanBot, archived to User:BD2412/Fifteenth dated archive. I made a dummy edit and placed Copieds. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! bd2412  T 14:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Brevity in RM discussions
I notice here you added what you called "standard header instructions". Where did you get that text from? I note that Requested moves doesn't include the word "brief" anywhere. StAnselm (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I copied that text from some discussion so long ago that I don't remember specifically where it came from. It's not my invention, though. bd2412  T 11:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the tip about notifying Wikiprojects. I wasn't sure it wouldn't be considered canvassing, so I thought it best to ask for admin input. :b More generally, thank you for consistently being a calm voice on the many pages the dispute has spread to. I'm surprised it took as long as it did to wear you down... I'm going to need a wikibreak myself soon. -sche (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not worn down, though - I've just done everything useful for me to do with respect to this matter. Cheers! bd2412  T 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Thanks! bd2412 T 22:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mike_Reid_(actor)
Hi - would you mind explaining your close here, especially about there being a clear majority of the subset who wanted it moved, to move it to "(actor)"? My tally shows the following:
 * In ictu oculi (nom): "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (actor)" 2nd choice
 * Taylor Trescott: "Mike Reid"
 * 5 albert square: "Mike Reid (entertainer)" (status quo)
 * anemone projectors: "Mike Reid (actor)"
 * Wbm1058: "Mike Reid (actor)" (apparently giving up on "Mike Reid (x entertainer)", although unclear on that point)
 * Dohn joe (me): "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (x entertainer)" 2nd choice
 * Super Mario Man: "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (actor)" 2nd choice

So it looks like "Mike Reid" was the first or only choice of 4 of the seven participants (which is also four of the six who wanted it moved). Only two had "Mike Reid (actor)" as a first choice, with two having it as a second choice. My math shows a "clear majority" in favor of "Mike Reid", don't you think? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look here, but I'm still confused. Your new rationale says that there was no consensus to move the dab page. But there were four people in favor of just that - as a first choice, and with policy-based support. Isn't that a stronger consensus than the 2+2 split for "(actor)"? Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two separate questions inherent in this multimove: Should "Mike Reid (entertainer)" be renamed, and should "Mike Reid" be renamed. As to the first issue, six out of seven editors supported moving the page away from "Mike Reid (entertainer)", a clear consensus; but as to the second issue, only four out of seven supported an option wherein "Mike Reid" would be moved; a slim majority, but not a consensus. Note also that Taylor Trescott's rationale was "per nom", which references the nomination itself, which in turn contemplates "Mike Reid (actor)" as a second choice. With a consensus in favor of moving "Mike Reid (entertainer)", but no consensus in favor of moving "Mike Reid", the next option in line is "Mike Reid (actor)". The only editor who unambiguously appears to be flatly opposed to that move is 5 albert square. bd2412  T 18:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But you've still chosen the second-most-favored option. First, I don't think you can assign "(actor)" as Taylor Trescott's second choice. They clearly said just "Support move to Mike Reid per nom" - no mention of a second choice. I also think that in this case, it's important to note that anemone projectors changed their vote after the "Mike Reid (American football)" stats were shown, but before the total evidence of PRIMARYTOPIC was presented. Would it be worthwhile/kosher to ask them if they considered that new evidence? That could change the calculus here. Dohn joe (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider "(actor)" to be Taylor Trescott's second choice so much as I consider his !vote to be a non-!vote on the "(actor)" issue. However, even putting that vote aside, it is clear that the page could not stay at "Mike Reid (entertainer)", and also that "Mike Reid" could not be moved. bd2412  T 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I went ahead and talked to anemone projectors and we had a nice discussion about it here. Have a read and see if that impacts your thinking on the topic. Thanks again, by the way, for your thoughtful explanations throughout - I greatly appreciate that. Dohn joe (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest initiating another move request in a month or so. bd2412  T 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the close on that. Most excellent job of reading consensus on a tricky one. I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more interest in Mike Reid (comedian), given that the only template he was in is Comics who appeared on "The Comedians". I'd support Mike Reid (actor and comedian) as well, but think I'll defer to the Brits here on that one. I'd also prefer something like Mike Reid (defensive lineman and singer), but what we have now works good enough. Just seems a bit odd to see a (singer) in those NFL categories, readers might click on that to see if we've made a categorization error! Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Andranik
Good point on Andranik (given name). I missed that there was no specific information about the name at Napoleon (disambiguation), and given the number of people listed there, am surprised that we don't have anything about that name! Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! bd2412  T 03:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but Napoleon does have an etymology of the name, I just put a Wiktionary link on Napoleon (disambiguation). Not sure I get that adding a simple etymology to the "lead" of that dab would destroy it as a dab, but if that's consensus... Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are many people with the name, Napoleon, and a substantial explanation of where the name comes from, then it can't hurt to have a separate Napoleon (name) page. bd2412  T 13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Thanks for the note. I do plan on participating, but I have not had the necessary time to read the arguments in sufficient detail yet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few days left in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I was trying to ignore it, but I'll get there tomorrow. I suspect it's going to be like trying to engage mating porcupines, probably POINTs in all directions. htom (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, we are all volunteers here. You may wish to participate, but by no means are you required to do so. Cheers! bd2412  T 12:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me about this. It is one of the depressing features of Wikipedia that when the community has discussed an issue and made a decision, a group of people work together to put the decision aside.  My feeling is that there is no point in normal people contributing.  We will be ignored.  One of the places the previous discussion was advertised was a group of people who were particularly likely to promote the change, because Manning is one of them. It is dangerous going up against such organised special-interest groups.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think that your interpretation is entirely wrong. The community failed to reach a decision in the last discussion, largely because of the procedural issues surrounding the initial set of moves. Many of the people who opposed the initial move indicated that the issue should be raised again in some comparatively short period of time. That is precisely why a new discussion has been initiated. Many of the people who opposed the initial move are supporting the current move request based on changes in coverage by reliable sources in the interim, as is permitted by longstanding policy at WP:TITLE. bd2412  T 19:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

THANKS BD !
Many thanks for helping out in the editing of the Luis González Bravo page. Cheers. SpanishChapters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification
Thank you for notifying me of the current discussion on the renaming issue for the Bradly Manning article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disamb
I agree, but I didn't want to split too many hairs over the page format. Star Trek is far more than a set index in appearance and function. I do not want to pose a risk to these pages that have long standing consensus and adequate coverage of the topic in the undecided arena of PTOPIC and DISAMB. Star Wars does two in the same scope and its much more confusing as a result. Though interesting with Indiana Jones and such, I did not realize that the current usage varies so widely. A very good point you made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
What a pleasant surprise; I'm truly honoured. I thought it was a bit of a leap from ancient China to the Cold War. There may be more to come if I get time - both Germany and the Soviet Union used multiple launchers in WWII. Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago
Hi - would you please restore the Doctor Zhivago special redirects? They're there for a reason. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whose reason? Has there been a community consensus to create these? How "temporary" do you intend them to be? bd2412  T 11:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Since you seem to have fully protected this page, you may wish to remove the template at the very top, the "not a vote" template, which begins "If you came here because someone asked you too..." This template goes on to invite the reader to participate in the discussion. However, with the discussion "closed", the reader is no longer invited to participate. Therefore, this template should be removed, and I can't do it. I guess any admin can, but since you protected the page, you should probably be the one to make this edit. Neutron (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call. Done. bd2412  T 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that instead of, you put  in an appropriate location so that we still have the TOC to help us navigate such a huge page? – Smyth\talk 21:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Done. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Animals of Farthing Wood (book series)
Can you merge this article into The Animals of Farthing Wood? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Carlos-Smith.jpg
You were mentioned at Trackinfo (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. bd2412  T 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussions
Please do not edit closed discussions. They are boxed and have a statement in boldface saying not to do so, because they need to remain as a record of what was there when the discussion was closed. If you have mistakenly edited any others than Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Powell, please go back and revert yourself. If you feel disambiguating after the fact is that important, create a talk-page for the closed template and note the correction there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have now indicated on the template talk page, the reason that the "Upstairs, Downstairs" link on this page needs to be disambiguated is that the page to which it pointed at the time the discussion occurred has been moved, and therefore the link no longer accurately represents the target page referenced during the discussion.
 * Thanks for making the point there. I've been reverted too often after taking too long to compose a thought only to find that the discussion is now boxed up, to believe that bolding is anything but serious. For good or ill, that's what it was when it was closed; and it's not as if it's an article, which could mislead a reader. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Because the link leads to a disambiguation page which lists more than one television show, a reader would not necessarily know which one was inspired by the book. Before the article on the 1971 TV series was changed, a reader clicking on the link would have been taken to the correct title. After the change, the reader will not know which title is correct. Although it may not be too difficult to figure out in this case, there are many instances where it is much harder to determine which disambiguation target was initially intended. Therefore, we routinely correct links to moved pages, even in "closed" discussions. bd2412  T 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do? I really have the opposite impression. Particularly because closed discussions by their very nature are not in article space; they're not pages directed at readers, and are likely to provide far greater sources of puzzlement than a link going to a DAB page or even to the wrong thing. Is there a place where one of us could ask for it to be clarified whether this is an exception to closure, or can you point me to a place where it's been stated as policy? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not be written down anywhere, but it has been the practice of this site for as long as I have been here. Also, your statement that "in retrospect it was already a link to a DAB page" is incorrect. This link did not become a disambiguation link until September 2013. Please revert your edit accordingly. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed we had been in the wrong back when we had the DYK nomination discussion; I didn't think to check for a move. Echo informed me of the discussion you opened and I have expressed my viewpoint concerning policy and practice there. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what took you so long. bd2412  T 05:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to sleep sometimes '-) Now on break at work. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Economics discussion
If I recall, you have a good economics background. I'm wondering if you or perhaps other editors that you know from this field would add additional discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. The insertion of the material in several articles has been a point of contention for the past year and it's becoming disruptive. We're starting to go in circles and I think we probably need some fresh voices / eyes on the matter to form a proper consensus as to the best way to address it. Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my field actually. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 2)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 3)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 4)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 5)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
 * 6)  is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see ).
 * 7)  is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
 * 8) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning.  Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
 * 9) All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at AN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)
Ladies and gents! The disambiguation page is now undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. Therefore, I invite you to particapte in the move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fast and Furious
Pardon me, but would you like to re-merge the page into The Fast and the Furious, or are both still grammatically apart? --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago dabpage
Can you convert this page to a set index? I would love to see you try without changing the title. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic Park
I know I can easily convert this into set index, but I can't do the way you have done without knowing the right tables and the right colors. --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it this weekend. In the meantime, I'm going to create a separate set index identifier for media. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen you refining it yet. Can you do so soon? --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

greetings
From Perth (sic)

Perhaps you can talk me around this one.

There is no such thing as Perth, Australia -= it does not exist in any sens of the word regardless if wikipedia tells you so, and it has nothing to do with primacy, just common sense.

There is Perth, Western Australia which a bunch of editors came a cropper/resulted inblood on the floor, and as result we have the terrible misnomer of Perth, which makes wikipedia look very very dumb.

So we have Perth, Australia - so why do you so feel so comfortable doing the revert? It would be appreciated if you can show me the error of my ways, as long as you do not come from Perth, Scotland... cheers.

satusuro 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a place called Perth, which is the primary meaning of the term. It happens to be in Australia; hence, when someone says "Perth in Australia" they are probably referring to Perth, just as someone referring to "Hollywood in the United States" they are probably referring to Hollywood in California, and not any of a number of other U.S. places called Hollywood. Perth, Australia is just shorthand for "Perth in Australia", and although there may be other places in Australia called Perth, this one is probably the one intended by just about anyone who says "Perth, Australia". bd2412  T 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A usual suspect who seems to own the disambig subject has responded equally by a silent revert, in a separate action, oh well.

I accept your explanation, of your revert, even if I disagree with it, on behalf of the reader on the terms of an existing policy. No further comment at this stage. satusuro 14:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss.
Design death gave his reasoning about Dr. Seuss here. You might need to respond there if you disagree. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested RM closes
Can you close these four requested moved? Talk:Onda (disambiguation), Talk:Pinet, Talk:Arce, Talk:Castejón. Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk · &#32; contributions} 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I weighed in on the outcomes, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to close the discussions. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)