User talk:Midas02

Jain Brāhman and Buddhist Bráhman
Hi there. You had edited the article Jain Brāhman. Could you please change the names of the following articles:

1) "Jain Brāhman" to "Jain Brāhmans"

2) "Buddhist Bráhman" to "Buddhist Brāhmans"

I hope a ll the content of the articles remains intact after the name change. Thank you. - User talk:Tapasya Dev

Talkback
I'd be really interested to see your reply. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Political funding in Ireland
Hi, thanks a lot for fixing my error! I was about to do so and found that you were faster. Khnassmacher (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation
How can you use the argument "not agreed upon" when all I've done is reiterated an existing point on MOS:DABSEEALSO? mol uɐɯ  01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I had misread "search links may be added" as "such links". --Midas02 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD notice
Hi, As a courtesy I wanted to let you know I've nominated Revolution Records for deletion. Your comments and input are welcomed. If you are aware of any reliable sources for this topic then this would be the time to cite them. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks --Midas02 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oropesa
I started a cleanup discussion at Talk:Oropesa, if you'd care to give your input. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

David Rhodes (musician)
There may be more than one David Rhodes who is a musician, but there appears to me to be only one with a wikipedia page: RHODES (musician). Therefore I feel my edit to the redirect page was appropriate. The disambiguation listing of David Rhodes is a link to a non-existant page and probable should be deleted. BuffaloBob (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. David Rhodes is an extremely well known guitarist from the Peter Gabriel era. It's a mystery to me why there's no article on him, but if you would have checked, there are a small hundred articles using to that red link (that's also a criterion for not removing a red link from a dab page by the way). Therefore there are currently two notable musicians, of which the latter one is only a very recent, young addition to the scene. I was in the process of moving the links over to the more precise (guitarist) disambiguator, hence why your abrupt change annoyed me. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Rover Motorsport
Rover Motorsport was originally an article but was changed to a redirect. The discussion was at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Victoria. I have reverted your edit to the redirect, as I think the creation of an article needs discussion. The redirect has been altered and I have no objection to altering it again. Maybe a redirect to Rovers (Australia) would be better. I do not see how a stand-alone article can survive. It is just not notable enough in wikipedia terms. I suggest the discussion should be a new section at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Victoria. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, all I saw was this "discussion". The current redirect is faulty by the way, its target no longer exists. And a dab page should be created, as confusion exists with the motorsport division of Rover cars. --Midas02 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being lazy tonight.
Could you kindly point me to the closest shortcut where I can read more about not section-linking on DAB pages? Thanks, &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, section linking is allowed, and piping as well, but not for the primary link of a DAB entry. The primary link should always correspond to the name of the dab page, hence why redirects to article sections might be appropriate. See WP:DABREDIR for a couple of good examples. --Midas02 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for that, that is what I was looking for. I shall study it for my long-term understanding of correct procedure.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry about my edit that essentially undid your work on Puskás. Don't know where my brain was. wia (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

George Lake
Thank you for your recent deletion of the hatnote I placed on the disambiguation page Lake George. Unfortunately, any other way of achieving the desired result would look awkward unless the page were exchanged with the redirect so the dab page was "George Lake". Would you find this satisfactory, and if so can you do the honors? Doug butler (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. Changing the dab's name would be a bad idea, as the majority of entries are about lakes and places called just that. Since there wasn't an article on a person called George Lake, there was no issue with the redirect, but I agree it could be perceived as awkward now. Some alternative options:
 * Create a people section at the top of the page and drop the person there.
 * Change the redirect, and have "George Lake" point to the person. Add a hatnote on the person's page to the Lake George dab page. Maybe the best option since the namesake links are either red, or are not very notable.
 * Create a George Lake dab page. Good option as well.
 * Nice article by the way. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Burchard (name)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Burchard (name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.general-books.net/sw2.cfm?q=Burchard.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. False positive, general-books seems to be copying Wikipedia pages. --Midas02 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, when copying within Wikipedia, you need to attribute the original source of the information otherwise that is still a copyright violation. I did it for this article, using Copied on the talk pages of the original dab page and the new one that you created. Cheers, James086 Talk  03:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
What exactly is your goal on James Jackson? This is an encyclopedia, not a game. It's about time you displayed more mature editing behavior. This is disruptive and wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore that, through repetitive aggressive and abusive language towards other editors, you have forfeited your right to be listened to. If you keep on harassing people and denying their rights to edit WP, you'll be on your way to a permanent ban. --Midas02 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Denying their right to edit WP? I never knew I could do that. Am I also a jedi master? Seriously though, you tell me not to restore content but then restore it countless times just to make your point. You were also told by several others that there was no harassment on my end, and your request to have me blocked and investigated (I am still not sure what for) was dismissed. Your actions are not those of an editor, but of a bully who won't take no for an answer. How about we try to get along here? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Tironensian Order
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tironensian Order, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ladysif (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reis (military rank)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reis (military rank), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://c-est-quoi.fr/fr/definition/reis.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages - please correct as needed. —Swpbtalk 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

County Tyrone

 * Both of the reliable sources I use have Dungannon Upper and Lissan listed as Barony and civil parish respectively. Further to that 'Badoney lower' is not a barony (although 'Bodoney Lower' is a civil parish) and Greencastle is not a civil parish. Ardfern (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Les (given name)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Les (given name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://what-is-this.net/en/define/Les.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Spinor
This edit of yours to Spinor didn't work. It didn't substitute the dates to add it to the category. Oddly the fix was to open it in an edit window and hit 'Submit' – it then substituted the dates properly. I’ve not used the DisamAssist tool so don't know if it’s something that normally happens or e.g. only in references.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a known issue with DisamAssist. It usually corrects itself as AnomieBOT goes round and automatically corrects the values. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Caroline Connan


The article Caroline Connan has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Clearly fails WP:JOURNALIST.

While all constructive 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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edcolins (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jamie Jackson (actor)
I have created Draft:Jamie Jackson (actor). If there's enough information to make an article, that will moot the redlink question. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

George Gibson
I noticed that here you disambiguated George Gibson (footballer) to George Gibson (footballer, born 1909). I was looking at that article earlier and found this page which gives a birthdate of 29 September 1907. What's your source for 1909? Nick Number (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Crikey, good of you to notify me. This is what you get with incomplete databases. My source is soccerbase. It's a site I often use, but now that I have your feedback, I noticed they list his dob as 1 January, which increases suspicion their date is not accurate, on top of a very incomplete profile. The site you've suggested is much better completed in this respect. They seem to have his complete profile, not surprising given that he played for Chelsea. They have the means to keep accurate records on their club's history. I'd definitely go by your site then. Here's additional proof this is probably the right one One remaining issue though, they all list him as a Scotsman, while the article mentions an Englishman. So I'll change that as well then. --Midas02 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking care of the changes. There might be enough material there for someone to make him a short article, but I am not feeling so motivated at the moment. Nick Number (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Rotary
Hi, what guideline on Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages were you trying to enforce on your recent edit to Rotary? The only problem I see is actually caused by that edit; Rotary (intersection) is a redirect to traffic circle, which is why the latter is preferred. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, the traffic circle indeed was one. It is preferred to use the redirect that actually uses the page's title. But there was a massive introduction of partial title matches as well. If present, they should go into a "See also" section. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mongolic people
Hi there! I saw you tagged Mongolic peoples as needing expansion, except this article already exists: Mongols. You can see from NGRAM views that "Mongolic people" is not used by scholars because it is a false back-formation from Mongolic languages, which in turn was derived from the word Mongol. All the Mongolic languages are quite closely related and connected to the expansion of the Mongols, who used the Middle Mongol language, which is essentially identical to the theoretical model created by linguists using linguistic reconstruction called Proto-Mongolic; there are no outliers. Cites from experts such as Janhunen clarify this: "Apart from Mongolian, or Mongol proper, the Mongolic language family comprises a dozen other languages, spoken mainly in regions adjacent to Mongolia. Historically, the Mongolic language family was formed as a result of the political expansion of the mediaeval, or "historical", Mongols under Chinggis Khan [...] and his descendants in the 12th-15th centuries."

There is a discussion going on at the talk page of that DAB about this issue as there is no scholarly basis for creating a page titled "Mongolic people(s)" (either way).

Pre-Mongol groups like the Xianbei are covered by proto-Mongols as they are not, sensu strictu, Mongols or Mongolic speakers, and the apparent distant cousin of the Mongol language, Khitan, has not yet been provided a classification aside from "para-Mongolic" and it is not appropriate for us to label them "Mongolic people" when scholars don't even use the word. The proto-Mongols page is cited, although I think it could use more work such as adding more cites like this. Ogress smash! 18:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was aware of the discussion. But I just wanted to stick a reminder on there that the current page is not maintainable as a dab page. It should either be reverted to its previous state, either a proper article should be written on what is to be understood by 'Mongolic people', subject to consensus. --Midas02 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hello Midas02, I saw your additions in some of my edits. Therefore I have a question to you. Why can't we see all my corrected populations dates in the infobox, p.E. Limbach, Baden-Württemberg and so on. My dates are from 31.12.2013 and always is shown 31.12.2012. What is here wrong? Thanks for answering and best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, you need to check the template which is being used on that page: Template:Infobox_German_location. That page indicates the data is automatically being fetched from another template, for the example you mentioned, Template:Metadata Population DE-BW. The date mentioned also comes from that database, it is the date at which that data was extracted.
 * If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't change anything to that database as those are official data. You can't just start fiddling with it. You could leave a message on the talk page of that template, asking them to update the data. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I did it to ask there. Rgds, -- Sweepy (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mongolic peoples (disambiguation)
Why did you revert the move of a disambig page to (disambig)? Ogress smash! 08:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, there are a couple of issues with the changes you made.


 * You made a technical mistake by doing what is called a cut-and-paste move. That's an issue, because you're not moving a page, you're just copying its data across to another page. As a result, the page histories get scrambled which is not desirable. If you would want to execute such a move properly, you have to use the move function to move one page to the other. If you can't do it yourself as a non-admin, as is the case here, one has to ask an administrator to do it.
 * Another issues, disambiguation pages do not use the (disambiguation) qualifier, unless there is a primary topic. Which you did not seem to do, the primary page was pointing to the dab page, which is not allowed.
 * Lastly, there is no reason to remove the dabconcept tag. In its current form, this is not a dab page. Dab pages give you a list of articles which share a common name, this is not the case here. If the issue is to suggest that Mongolic peoples include all of the items mentioned on that page, then it should be written as such in a short article. But that's not what a dab page is for. --Midas02 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be a redirect to Mongols; we definitely don't need a separate article. There's no Mongolic people(s) topic, because Mongolic people = Mongols. It's one of those accidents of linguistics history. Ogress smash! 02:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the state the page had always been in until it was changed back in March 2015. You should revert it to that point then, unless someone objects. --Midas02 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Urney
Red links on DAB pages: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. Hohenloh + 13:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I appreciate you getting in touch, but I would also appreciate it if you are open to the fact that others might actually know what they are talking about, especially if the arguments being presented are flawed. There is a range of ways to fix issues on disambiguation pages, and in this case, it would be to add blue links to the individual entries, as they are all notable, article-worthy, and mentioned on other pages. As the guidelines prescribe. And then there's the issue of the location of the dab page, which is an issue I had already addressed here, even before you got involved. And that's also why I hadn't fixed that dab page, as I wanted that discussion to come to a conclusion first.
 * So in the interest of all, fixing dab pages should be the preferred course of action, not destroying information that will ultimately deceive readers in thinking there's only one item by that title, thus presenting them with incomplete information. --Midas02 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I have been keeping an eye on this and related pages since I created the article Urney (now Urney, County Tyrone) in August 2012. IMHO changing the Urney article to a disambiguation page, which was done in April 2015, by adding three redlinks, contravened the Disambiguation guidelines. Had these three links been blue I wouldn't have had a problem with the page. I waited for the editor concerned (or anyone else) to provide the blue links or otherwise fix the page to satisfy the DAB guidelines but this didn't happen. So, being Brave, I simply reverted the page to its original state, in the hopes of provoking a response. Still not happy with the state of the page, though, but hope to achieve a satisfactory solution through discussion. Hohenloh + 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I've expressed on the disambiguation talk page, it is my interpretation of the guidelines that a topic should be the primary topic if it's the only article by that name. The disambiguation page can then be moved to the background using the (disambiguation) qualifier. That way, the dab page doesn't go lost, and can later even be moved to the primary location if other articles are created with the same name. --Midas02 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've received no further feedback on the project talkpage, so I've pushed things forward: WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB --Midas02 (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Deny info a good idea?
Hello! It would be interesting to know why (1) you feel WP users should look for, but not find, the most common definitions of some words here and (2) why such drastic changes should be made w/o using talk, sich as re: Debut. I'm very confused. Perhaps you could explain? Guideline: "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi!
I see you removed a Longcomment from a short dab page, is it no longer necessary? Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends. I only have a vague idea on the purpose they're serving, so in general I leave them alone. If I deleted one, it's probably because I added a substantial bit of text to the dab page, thus compensating in character count for the removal of the longcomment. --Midas02 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't add anything in length, so I restored it. I was asking you because I'm creating hundreds of dab pages, and I continue to include the Longcomment almost every time. You can let me know if you find out in the future that it is no longer necessary. Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for your reference if you want, this is the edit I was talking about. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That page is 400 characters long and therefore didn't need the longcomment template. Dab pages usually don't need it, by the way, only the shortest do. See Template:Long comment: Use subst:long comment on very short articles (smaller than about 120 characters). --Midas02 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

DAB
Dear Midas02, please explain how 'I broke both MOS:TITLE and WP:MOSDAB'

as per WP:MOSDAB (WP:PIPING): Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation page.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, you are correct, but you haven't read the right parts of the policies. Piping is indeed mostly forbidden for the main link in a dab entry, except where WP:TITLE requires it. This is also specified at WP:DABPIPING. One of those exceptions is that we put film names in italics, so that's why you will see that particular formatting on all dab pages
 * Another problem with your changes is that you add dab entries without a blue link. See MOS:DABRL. In this case, what you should do:

Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.
 * I've had a look at a couple of your changes, and now that you're aware of this, you will understand what's wrong with the Ketan Desai and Tadap dab pages you created. It's great that you're helping to clarify that there are multiple items by that name, but you shouldn't add entries with just a red link. I've fixed Ketan Desai by adding a blue link where you can find some more information on the background of the film director. Please note that I've changed the dab tage as well to the "human disambiguation" tag. I'll leave it to you to see how you could fix the Tadap page.
 * If there's anything else I could help you with, feel free to ask. --Midas02 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed the Tadap (dab) page, pleas verify. Thanks for your clarificaion. --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're not quite there yet. Tadap isn't mentioned at all on actor Bharat Bhushan's page. So you failed MOS:DABMENTION: If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. For your info, here are the articles where that link is currently being used.
 * Now, there's a quick fix for that issue. Either you can add Tadap to the Bharat Bhushan article, or you can add a blue link to another article. Please note that there seems to be a problem on the page of the director, Jyoti Sarup. That film is being mentioned twice on there, once with the year 1986 and a bit further with the year 1995. You may want to fix that as well.
 * You also forgot to format the film titles, they need to be put in italics, but only the title, like on the MAA dab page.
 * And you can drop the section "Film" as well. We don't use sections if there are only a couple of items on a dab page. They are only meant to create some order when there are too many entries on the same page, you don't need them when there are just a handful of items. --Midas02 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Franco
We must be reading a different MOSDAB. MOS:DABNAME says a person referred to by the single name should be in the body of the disambiguation page. Not having Franco in there is silly, it's such an obvious search term. Maybe it's happened for the xth time because it should be that way. Vrac (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you are referring to, is the place where name holders should be mentioned on a dab page. This does not cover the situations where there is a separate anthroponymy article, where name holders should always be moved to as they are partial matches. --Midas02 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll quote it for you: persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the body of the disambiguation page if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare).  Francisco Franco is just such a person.  BTW "violate" isn't really the appropriate word when referring to a guideline, it's a guideline after all, not a law. Vrac (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you would respect the process of this discussion instead of aggressivele reverting my corrections to the page as you just did. The citation you're mentioning concerns people who are linked by their shortname on Wikipedia. That is not the case for General Franco. You have ignored the next sentence though, which states that people should be moved to the athroponymy article if such exists, which is the case here. Now I agree the wording in MOSDAB is far from perfect, so you're always welcome to take your grievances to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages if you would like to.
 * Another reason I reverted you, is because you introduced the Main template, which doesn't belong on dab pages. --Midas02 (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you "aggressively" revert yourself. Look at the quote: "if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name", which is clearly the case with Franco.  There is nothing said about linking with shortnames.  As for the following sentence: "For longer lists, create an anthroponymy list article and link to it from the disambiguation page", that clearly does not say "you must move all names to the anthroponymy  list". All this wikilawyering is beside the point, the purpose of DAB is to make things easier to find, and MOS:DAB is a guideline, not a contract.  People are going to search for Franco, why make it more difficult for them? General Franco is Franco like Josef Stalin is Stalin and Adolf Hitler is Hitler and Madonna is Madonna.  Is that really in dispute?  No need for a reply actually, I can see this isn't going anywhere so I'll take it somewhere else. Vrac (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

strategy about disambiguation of saints
Hi, I think you make good points IMO whenever you comment at wt:DPL. I don't want to comment there very much now myself, because I feel I spoke up too much for a while, and because I am having less time to do any followups if necessary. Your comment about saints is interesting, you said: "There's a good reason for not clearing topics off the monthly list, [it could be because of one thing] or because it's quite simply impossible to find out which should be the target link (noticed all of the saints). They will always remain on there, but are sometimes being picked off as well, just at a slower pace. But I fail to see why you would want one-linked dabs to be dealt with. They're only at the bottom of the list."

I tried to clear some saint ones previously and find it virtually impossible. In one case I contacted a local historian/geneologist in the area of a girls' catholic school by email, and within a week or two he actually did inquire about it to the historian of a convent (it was convenient as he was at the convent to do other research), and he reported back which was the specific saint that the school is named for. But we can't do that for every school and church, and while the info would be re-producible by someone else following up to the convent librarian again, the process did not identify a written source to cite. My point is that even local persons, even local historians, don't know which specific saint is meant. I imagine that most members of a congregation don't know, or think they know but have it wrong, about which saint their church was originally named for. So I proceed to think it is NOT IMPORTANT which saint it is, e.g. for St. John, whether St. John the Baptist or St. John the apostle, etc. And it is unreasonable to require disambiguation of a link to the "St. John" page. Do you agree? If so, how about converting the St. John dab page to a SIA, and explain up top that the term is often not very specific but rather indicates a male saint including any one of the following. And the intro could comment that this one is more likely to be intended because of the observable, measurable fact that it has more churches known to be named for them specifically; I am presuming that there are some sources out there which would support statements like that (about which saints are more often a namesake). Then wouldn't it be productive, in a permanent good way, to do conversions of saints dabs that way, late in the month when the competition list has been run down... Anyhow, your comment pointing out the special problems of saints seems important to follow up on in some way.

Oh, and about following up on topics I raised at the Talk page, I would be grateful if you took an interest in converting more of the 50 or so dab pages whose entries are nearly all persons of a given surname, to convert them to Surname pages. I am not going to seek a Bot as no one else supported that and it does seem that individual treatment would be better. I will try to do some of those 50 occasionally and strike them off, but like i said I don't have too much time now.

Keep up your good work, cheers, -- do ncr  am  22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Doncram, you've brought a lot of interesting ideas to the project talk page, but they may not result to a lot because you're trying to take on too much at once. It would probably be best if you would concentrate your efforts on taking smaller steps forward, which can be achieved, rather than trying to push large concepts which can easily get swamped in conflicting opinions. But that's how I would do it...
 * On the saints. I partly agree with you, but not on the fact that it's not important or unidentifiable which saint is being intended. Any religious building will usually have images or statues of their patron saint, and these carry insignia that are typical for a particular saint, and thus allow identification. So it can be determined which saint is being intended. But as proven by your interesting anecdote, in some cases it is just a nigh impossible (I used to have a serious struggle with Saint Paraskevi myself, I wonder where all of those links went to, as they were virtually impossible to fix).
 * So yes, an SIA might be a solution to disarm the problem. I'm just wondering if it's the right time for it. The monthly dab list is still in the sevens, and the saint pages aren't exactly occupying the complete top half of the list, so I would leave that idea aside for when they start becoming a cluttering nuisance.
 * About the surname pages. Same comment actually. I clean up dab pages as I go along the dab list. I usually strive to leave clean sheets behind, and fix the dab pages at the same time. So if I come across flawed dab/surname pages, they get fixed. I feel it wouldn't be a good use of my time to concentrate on that, rather than trying to push the dab list down. This opinion will of course change once the dab list will start hitting the fours or so. Then we'll be getting into dab pages with unsolvable links territory, and time will be freed up to look at the particular problem you mentioned.
 * Mind you, before converting a dab page to a name page, links pointing to it should be cleaned up at forehand, as the page will not show up on the monthly list anymore. So that could take a lot of extra time as well which is better spent on working on the top dab pages right now. --Midas02 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was taking on too much at once, I agree.  Upon further thought about the saints, I do agree with you that it is not unimportant, and that they usually can be determined by images at the churches themselves (although there may be no published sources that will ever become available to cite).  It is fine of course for you to choose your priorities, and your reasoning makes sense.  I am concerned, though, that what should be permanently valid links to surnames may frequently be unlinked by wp:DPL efforts as the only way to clear them as dablinks, if the surname pages are not converted appropriately from dabs to surname-SIA pages.  And that links to saints are delinked when it would be better to be patient with them and allow them to persist until solved.  You may not unlink them that way, but the monthly challenge provides pressure for that to be done (or in other words it keeps bringing them to the attention of disambiguators, who will vary in their opinions of what's best, until one of those who are inclined to think delinking is best will find their way to it and delink it).  So although the consensus or majority view might be that a saint-link should be left until solved with a specific saint, we're participating in a process that could pretty much guarantee it will be delinked.  I am not saying it is a huge problem or anything, as I don't know that.  But as the wp:DPL project is getting close to completely eliminating all-but-new dablinks in Wikipedia, I would have expected to see some kind of explicit guidance being written up, giving a consensus view on how to handle the common dablinks (including saints and surnames along with The Telegraph and other known common dablinks).  Anyhoo, thanks and cheers, -- do  ncr  am  14:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered it, because I start by assuming people act responsibly, but I agree with your last remarks. Inconsiderate dab editors are a problem. You could bring up the SIA proposal on the project talk page. It is a fact some saint pages are not going to go anywhere anymore, and will become perminent residents of the top of the dab list. --Midas02 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Langley edits
Yes, I did lookup the proper disambiguated form for all of those edits. They almost all refer to the city. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's not credible and not in line with some other disambiguation fixes you made which were also done in rapid succession, not leaving time to do any kind of research, and which were often quite wrong. I'm afraid I will have to revert those. --Midas02 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jalpari
Hello Midas02

I noticed that you reverted my edit from the disambiguation page Jalpari. I just removed the dead wikilink. It was a useless dead wikilink of a film and the dead wikilinks should be removed from the disambiguation pages. I don't know why did you rolled back my edit. If you are Rollbacker it doesn't means you have a right to rollback any edit.-- Musa  Talk  14:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, your interpretation of red links is a bit off. They are not "dead links", and yes, they are allowed, and even have a good reason to exist on dab pages. I had given the reason for my revert in the comments, please have a read through MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL. In short, when a link is being used in articles, even if it is a red link, it must be added to a dab page. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Transfermarkt
In response to your edit summary please allow me take a moment to explain why Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Most people are unaware of this, but site's database is largely user-generated. To quote the site's login page: ''Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit.'' This means that website qualifies as a self-published source and should be treated as unreliable. It also means the site is easily abusable as a means of introducing false information to Wikipedia, and this has actually been done in the past. was banned from Wikipedia for, among other things, adding false information to Wikipedia articles by citing Transfermarkt profiles, which he had written himself. I should also add that my assertion that Transfermarkt is not reliable is by no means unilateral. This has been discussed several times at WP:RSN (most recently here) and at WP:ANI (here). Additionally, Template:Transfermarkt was deleted on the grounds that the site is not a reliable source following a WP:TfD discussion here. I hope that clarifies things. Please do not cite Transfermarkt in articles, in the future. Happy editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. However, I disagree with many of your arguments, and your comments are missing the point as well.
 * On the nature of Transfermarkt. I'm very well aware that the site is partly or wholly user generated, but so is pretty much every other football database I'm aware of. It doesn't make it more or less reliable than other ones. It also depends what one uses it for. If you're looking for a date of birth, a piece of information which is less scrutinised for footballers, then what you find there might not always be accurate. But the picture is completely different for the more important transfer histories, data of a public nature which is easily verifiable. And in that respect, Transfermarkt is often a very good source.
 * I'd also be happy to learn which football sources you consider reliable then.
 * On another note, what is reliable? Is the BBC reliable? Are major newspapers reliable? Let's not go into the number of gaffes or inaccuracies they publish each and every day. The point of providing multiple sources is to allow a user to verify for himself. In that respect Wikipedia is not reliable itself, as it is user generated, but the sources allow one to verify the data.
 * I don't see any discussion on Transfermarkt involving more than a handful of people, on top of people disagreeing as well. So no, there is no consensus to discredit Transfermarkt any more than any other football source.
 * Where you're missing the point, is that I didn't provide Transfermarkt as a source, I listed it as an external link. As I did with other databases as well. So all data comes from multiple sources, and the changes I made are therefore not based on Transfermarkt by itself. Which makes your point of deleting the link invalid.
 * Given the above, I'd be happy to find out how football stats should be sourced then. --Midas02 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've reverted you on the page of Carlos Diaz again as you were pushing through the change without replying to my arguments first.
 * Just to be clear, I am open to your arguments, but as it stands I don't believe there IS a guideline in that sense, so a handful of people should not be pushing through something they decided between themselves in some backroom of Wikipedia. If you would like to see this through, then organise a broader discussion concluded with a full vote by the wider community. Then that could be lodged as a guideline in the football section and there will be no more discussion.
 * But I'll make a quick and direct proposal. Why would this situation be any different than the case of IMDB? That website is user generated as well, even partly populated by professional marketeers who have a vested interest in promoting their clients. But it doesn't mean it should be discredited. On the contrary. Wikipedia has replied with a template which warns for articles being sourced uniquely by IMDB. Have a look at Michael J. Reynolds (actor) for instance. --Midas02 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for replying earlier, it seems I somehow neglected to watch you talk page. That being said, I have to very seriously question the wisdom of reintroducing a source you know to be of questionable reliability into a biography of a living person, especially when there is an on going discussion into the matter. Now I'm not going to run afoul of edit warring policy, but I invite you to remove the source, at the very least until this matter is settled. To address your comments on external links first, pretty much all football databases meet point 1 of WP:ELNO. Given the plethora of databases out there, none of them is a unique resource, and most of the information contained in most database entries (including transfermarkt) should be included in the article if it were to become featured. Now they're listed there anyways by well-intentioned editors who don't know the EL-guidelines (god knows I was one of them for far too long). Correcting this would be a Sisyphean task, so they're let stand, but should be treated as sources for the relevant statistics. The rest of your argument basically boils down to other stuff exists, which is never valid without convincing a reason as to why it exists. I also have disagree with the assessment that there isn't a guideline on this, given how clearly WP:RS and WP:V address the issue: For that reason self-published media..are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated...Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person. (WP:RS wording, emphasis original). That being said, there probably should be a Wikipedia namespace page outlining the problems with Transfermarkt; I've actually been working on one since before this issue came up. I'll be sure to let you know when it's ready for presentation. As for better sources, I can't really help you with this article in particular. The US and Trinidad are too far outside my area expertise. hlsz.hu is generally a good resource and might have a page on Diaz's career in Hungary, but it's very difficult to navigate if you don't speak Hungarian. (A cursory check turned up nothing, but that's probably due to the language barrier). More broadly, databases tend to be more accurate and more reliable, the more narrowly construed they are. To give some examples, Fussballdaten has an decent database for the German speaking countries. For the competitions is organises, the Swedish FA maintains what in my opinion one of the best designed database out there. For England and Scotland, Neil Brown's football database is probably your best bet (though that may change since he died recently). If all else fails, Soccerway is not bad as a fall back, at least for active footballers. I hope that helps. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for replying, it's refreshing to deal with civil people once in a while.
 * The problem with your view is that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. User-generated or not, why do I consider Transfermarkt, as well as any other database, as a source? Because it often provides a piece of missing information you didn't find elsewhere, and allows you to put two and two together. That's why I also asked which football database you then consider to be reliable, because none will ever provide a full picture, and definitely not the ones which were made by a single author. Neither will newspapers or any other source. But all of them together might provide pieces of the puzzle... as well as errors! I have even spotted mistakes on Fifa's website, and then I make a note of it in the article so the reader is informed. So I find it very strange that you single out Transfermarkt. As I stated previously, I would definitely prefer to have an explicite guideline on which databases, not just Transfermarkt, could be considered as sources for WP, as well as the ways in which they should be used.
 * In this respect you've overlooked my comment on IMDB though. If I understand correctly, that site would fail most of the guidelines you mentioned as well. And yes, it also contains errors. But still, Wikipedia found a pragmatic way to deal with the problem by warning for data that was uniquely based on IMDB. So why couldn't the same be applied for football databases? That's definitely an element which should be part of the broader discussion. --Midas02 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll start with IMDB then. I've not overlooked it, but rather have chosen to ignore it. I know far too little about how that site is structured to be able make an informed informed argument. I suspect its not completely analogous for the simple reason that there is far more statistical data about sportspeople than actors. There is also the possibility that it is unique enough to not be excluded under WP:ELNO. Second, you appear to have misunderstood my position somewhat. I do not oppose the use of databases as sources. For exactly the reasons you've spelled out they are very important sources. They should be listed as sources, rather than external links because of WP:ELNO, but as I've said that's not really a error worth fighting over. What makes Transfermarkt different is the source of potential errors. With reliable databases, we can be reasonably certain that errors are nothing more than honest mistakes (typos, computer glitches, out of order updates, etc.). With Transfermarkt there is always the distinct possibility that it is malicious, possibly even with the intent of disrupting Wikipedia. As I've already explained, this has actually happened before. Finally, I should add that consensus on this issue is in fact far broader than the RSN discussion makes it out to be. It's not without reason that in the ANI thread I linked above that the complainant is immediately (albeit implicitly) threatened with administrative action. I've been involved in this issue for a few years now, and have seen most experienced members of the WP:WikiProject Football express support for the non-use of Transfermarkt. (I know this sounds like an "I know best" argument, and I will try to dig up some documentation on this, but this will probably prove difficult since most of these are off-hand remarks in a random talk page discussion here, or an afd there). Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. There's no point in continuing this discussion, as you will be having the same discussion with every other person you come across. As it stands, I don't agree with your view that Transfermarkt should be disregarded, on the condition that it is interpreted intelligently and information is corroborated by other sources.
 * What I would suggest though, is that you open up the discussion on the Football project page, and get to the bottom of this once and for all. There is already a great deal of links on WP:WPFLINKS, but no mention of Transfermarkt, nor similar sites like footballdatabase. Then on the other hand, I see sites on that list which aren't terrible, or have misled me in the past, as Soccerbase did (see George Gibson above). So it's not a black-and-white situation. I feel there's definitely a requirement for a discussion on the topic, which should lead to a guideline on WPFLINKS. And then we can all get on with other stuff to do. --Midas02 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Undoing my Veela edit
The page was deleted after I added it to the disambig. Zmario111 (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. In that case I would suggest trying to find out why the article was deleted, and fixing it so the article can remain on Wikipedia. --Midas02 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already found out why. Apparently it's not a notable enough of a person :P Zmario111 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given her entry on Discogs, I believe there is enough to meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines. I'd suggest you recover the article, continue editing it on your own pages as a draft article, and then submit it again for validation. That way you less run the risk of having it deleted until it is deemed fit for publication. --Midas02 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No sources
If you want to revert the disambiguation page into an article, please provide reliable third-party citations that demonstrate notability. As it stands the article has no sources and all of its topics are covered in grandfather paradox and causal loop. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I don't take an interest in the article. What I do care for, is the state of links pointing to that article. "Temporal Paradox" is a concept, so it needs an article explaining it. It could only be a dab page if there would be multiple articles with that name, which is not the case. So it should either be an article, or what's called a Broad concept article, but definitely not a dab page as you will then get a hundred of links to this page that no longer have an article to point to.
 * What's done with the content of the page is a whole different matter in which I don't take an interest. But "notability" is an incorrect term here, lack of citations might be more appropriate. --Midas02 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of disruptive to revert a page and call it a day. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should pay more attention to what I'm saying. I don't care much for the content of the page. What's wrong, though, is the form. "Temporal Paradox" is a concept, so it needs a (broad concept) article, as it has always been. --Midas02 (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am paying attention and I am saying that editing articles without caring about the result is disruptive. If you want to fix an article, put some work into it. If you want to revert based on policy to an unreferenced state, that's disruptive. If you don't care, don't revert and go. Put in some work and make the article better. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Without realising you're hitting the exact point. A dab page is NOT an article. It's a technical page for navigation purposes, hence why one can't just replace the other. --Midas02 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the page, I'm talking about your awful attitude of reverting a page to an unsourced version and shrugging it off with "I don't care". Please note the phrases "disruptive", "put some work", "don't care", and "don't revert and go", which are not about the article but about your behavior. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

PIN
Great, destroy a whole edit because you disagree with a detail. Very polite! Nice snarky attitude. You have refused to rectify the problem. You have refused to acknowledge the problem. Try being polite yourself next time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You made it so the blind were unable to read 1/2 the article.  This is NOT "disagreeing"  with a detail.
 * 2) You have continually added the ToC in the wrong location and I have continually fixed it.  I have even pinged you on various article's talk pages.
 * Fixing the first remark doesn't require undoing an edit that contained four or five different elements. And on the second point, I had taken notice, and have added TOC on hundreds of occasions since, which makes your accusations wild and unsubstantiated. I'm expecting an apology. --Midas02 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pershing Square Capital Management
Please stop repeatedly adding Pershing Square Foundation to the Pershing Square Capital Management. A citation to the foundation's own website is not a WP:RS. It is not clear there's any connection between the investment firm and the foundation (besides Ackman). Can I ask if you have any connection with Pershing Square? It seems like an odd thing to add to the investment company's page. I also do not understand why you would add it to the Company history section, which makes it even less sense. At the very least post an explanation to the talk page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey
I fixed that thing here, but a new edit-warring user has hopped in. He's doing the same on other articles, so I don't now, want to revert him back or wait for the 3RR block? - LouisAragon (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe I can see what you mean. I've detected some strong language which was quite inappropriate. I didn't understand why you changed that link though, allow me to make an opening statement. --Midas02 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just replied. Yeah, excuse me, I initially didnt realize that it was a dab page, so I erroneously reverted it. But then, as you can see, I changed it from a dab page link (as you pointed out) to a red link (as you suggested). Following that, he simply jumped in, for no reason at all, and reverted it somehow again with a pretty loaded edit summary. I believe he has some issues with the English language, as I pointed another issue to him through an edit summary on another page, but instead of reading and then talking, he simply reverted it back numerous times while using strong language, which on itself could be report-worthy. Anyway, we did out part. Next time, its gonna be a report. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

SMP What's incorrect?
I carefully read WP:DABSECTION, and thought the edit which you reverted was exactly in accordance with the style there.

"Section and anchor points in links should not be visible to the reader. If an anchor-point link is needed [...] For links in the description [...] use an anchor-point link with piping to display text similar to the article title."

I thought that's exactly what I did. Could you clarify your objection, please? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Have a look at WP:DABPIPING, more specifically the example given about "Ten". The explanation says "the link should be in the description, ... avoid surprising the reader". You only linked the words Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, which would suggest the link leads you there. That's not the case however, the link is about the program, not about the institute. So, as a minimum, the word program should be linked. I do admit though it might be better to link a bit more than just the word program, so I've corrected that. Best regards, --Midas02 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I did look at WP:DABPIPING; in fact I read the entire WP:PIPING MoS section, of which that is a subsection.  My quote above is from one line below that subsection, and seemed the most on-point to me.
 * "You only linked the words Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, which would suggest the link leads you there. That's not the case however"


 * [[Image:Symbol question.svg|20px]] W. T. F.?
 * This statement appears to me to be precisely 180&deg; opposite to the truth. I am at a complete loss as to how someone could make it.  I can only assume there is some catastrophic comprehension error on your part.
 * My link was (wikitext cut & pasted verbatim) Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, because the page it links to is Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur. If, as you say, that is not the case, what page do you think it does link to instead?
 * The entire thrust of WP:DABPIPE is that the reader should not be misled about the title of the page a link goes to. The entire section is basically elaborations on and examples of that theme.
 * With narrow exceptions, the preferred text of a link is the title of the page being linked to. As the quote above explains, the name of the section or anchor point should not be linked, only the title.  That is why I wrote what I did and not Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur.
 * Before we go on with the rest of your comments, could you re-read what you wrote, and confirm if you wish to stand behind the quoted assertion? Because I don't know what to do if there's actual disagreement (as opposed to misunderstanding) on something so fundamental. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, in this case we're not linking to the article of that university, we're linking to a section of it, which is not the same. If we would be linking to the whole article, then obviously, putting its name between brackets would suffice. Since we're linking to a section, that should be made clear from the display text, as the "Ten" example clearly shows. As to the line you brought up about "display text similar to the article title", I believe you're interpreting that much too strictly (it says similar - not identical), although I agree it could lead to confusion. You could bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages if you'd like to. --Midas02 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that's not what the "Ten" example shows. It say that linking to Dragon Ball is incorrect because a Dragon Ball article exists.  It's saying that you may use different link text to fit in grammatically with the description, but if you do, it should not be the title of a different article.
 * Look at the previous example, the link to ESRB . Notice how it is linking to an appropriate subsection, with the bare title of the page as the link text.
 * It's important to understand that both of the above are permitted but not required. They're part of an "Exceptions" subsection, and if you start reading from the introduction paragraph immediately before the subsection, it says:
 * As a general rule, do not use piped links on DAB pages.
 * One case where you should use a pipe is to hide raw section and anchor points.
 * Two other cases apply when the raw link text doesn't render correctly due to technical restrictions.
 * All other exceptions are where you may use variant link text, but are not encouraged to.
 * The permission to use "piping to display text similar to the article title" is when it's required for grammatical fit; it's not a MoS requirement.
 * This is made more clear a little bit further down, in MOS:DABMENTION. The MoS encourages a link to an article that mentions the subject with a "link to the relevant section of the target page using anchors and conceal that by making it a piped link."
 * That text, and the ESRB example, make it clear to me that the MoS not only does not require, but actually slightly discourages varying the link text on a DAB page to indicate that a subsection is being linked to.
 * In other words, unless it would be awkward, the preferred form of the link text is the unmodified target article title even if linking to a section/anchor within that article.
 * Thank you again for catching my mistake the first time, but I read the MoS carefully and really think I got it right the second time.
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm done here. You seem to be mainly interested in the phrases which support your opinion, so I can't stop you from doing that. Your case isn't helped by the fact you're not using a login, which would allow me to know who I'm dealing with. The example on ESRB you've brought up is interesting, but is dead wrong, as it conflicts with the other examples given, and as that particular phrasing is no longer present on the said disambiguation page since 2012. ESRB had been mentioned on MOSDAB as an example in 2008, in a completely different context, and the exact wording has been mutilated since, so it should be removed. As I said before, feel free to take it up on the MOSDAB talk page if you'd like to have the opinion of other experienced editors. --Midas02 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "You seem to be mainly interested in the phrases which support your opinion,"


 * Actually, it worked the other way around. First I read it, then I formed an opinion about what it said.
 * I read the entire section (indeed, I skimmed the entire page), and I think I summarized it completely and fairly. If you think I have omitted important context, please point it out!
 * "is dead wrong, as it conflicts with the other examples given"


 * Er.. which other examples? There are only a handful of subsection links on the entire MoS page, and neither the Galactic quadrant (Star Trek) nor the List of Dragon Ball characters examples address this point.
 * Anyway, I agree it would be more productive to ask for clarification on the talk page.
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion started at Request for clarification about MOS:DABMENTION. I'd appreciate it if you'd check that I'm reporting your position in the discussion accurately. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Esposito
I'm not entirely clear what "linked at least a dozen times" is but I simply changed the redirect because I found nothing at all to suggest he was independent notable or even that improvement could be made so given that article's current state, it simply served better as a likely search term for Mike Esposito, other people who seemed notable instead. The article is speedy, PROD and AfD material but as it seems clear he is not notable, I'm not seeing the need for a week(s) long AfD nomination. SwisterTwister  talk  05:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree that the name should be redirected to the dab page, as the longer or more formal version of "Mike" Esposito. But you can't just redirect this article though, as it is currently, deliberately, linked by a dozen other articles. So redirecting would leave all those other articles with a link to a dab page which can't be solved. Also, please note the article has been there since 2008, so "speedy deleting" seems somewhat out of the question. Feel free to take it to AFD if you'd like to. --Midas02 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Don't talk to me like that again. And don't accuse me doing things sneakily. I fail to see how I have. You are intact destabilising a Featured List by messing about with wikilinking. Why you feel the need to link to a non-existent article creating a red wikilink I don't know. Don't try and take the moral high ground with me, for you have also made two reverts; if you felt the need to have me "banned", you would only be self-incriminating yourself for doing the very same thing. Reading through other messages left on this talk page by other editors, they too have an issue with you disambiguating to non-existant articles and you have clearly provoked them into arguing as well. Next time, leave a message on the article talk to discuss an issue instead of creating one.'' — Calvin999  00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good faith can't be assumed if someone is reverting an edit without adding a comment. That's considered to be rather aggressive, and comments are mandatory by the way.
 * You should read up on what red links are for, and how the disambiguation process works. The fact is that I actually fixed a link that was pointing incorrectly to another John Reid. It didn't seem to bother anybody then. Now that it has been fixed (with a link to a very well known John Reid by the way, regardless of the fact that he doesn't have an article here), it does seem to bother you.
 * I'm curious to find out what you meant by You are intact destabilising a Featured List by messing about with wikilinking though. --Midas02 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the same rhetoric that you spilled to every other editor above you has called you out for the same thing. — Calvin999  11:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Paddy O'Brien
I understand that red links are useful in general, as articles may be created in the future. In some cases, however, they may be misleading, and Paddy O'Brien is one such case. "Paddy" is one of the most common first names in Ireland (and was more so 50 or 100 years ago), and "O'Brien" is one of the commonest surnames. Thus, if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Paddy O'Brien (IRA), you will find the Battle of Dublin (added by you recently) and the Kilmichael Ambush, but I have failed to find any evidence that Paddy O'Brien of the Cork Brigade, IRA (Kilmichael Ambush, 1920) was the same man as Paddy O'Brien of the Dublin Brigade, IRA (Battle of Dublin, 1922). He might have been, or he might not. In fact, I have found evidence to suggest that the Paddy O'Brien of Kilmichael was not the same man as the Paddy O'Brien of the Clonbanin Ambush (County Cork, 1921). Similarly, if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Paddy O'Brien (Kilkenny hurler), you will find Template:Kilkenny Hurling Team 1946 and Template:Kilkenny Under-21 Hurling Team 1975. He would have to be some athlete to have played on both teams! In the latter case, it may well be that the 1946 template (and Template:Kilkenny Minor Hurling Team 1939) just need to be edited to link to Paddy O'Brien (Éire Óg hurler), but even then you'd be working on nothing more than conjecture, and the IRA officer is far less straightforward. Since I do not want to be seen to be edit-warring with you, can I ask you at least to self-revert this edit on Battle of Dublin and edit Paddy O'Brien to remove the Battle of Dublin and link Kilmichael instead? Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Scolaire, thanks for looking into this. On the IRA man I'm obviously going to revert my change then. I am fully aware it was one of Ireland's most common names, but given that all articles mentioned him as a commander, and all events took place within more or less the same time frame, I thought it was reasonable to believe it would be the same man. But if you feel otherwise, we'll revert that then. As you suggested, there's no point in introducing false links, there's too much of that going on already.
 * On the hurler. I was aware of it, but I just wanted to get rid of the arduous task of fixing the dab links. When I started, I already spent a fair bit of time keeping the accordionists apart, and fixing those links. Then came the hurlers, a lot of them erroneously linked to the (hurler) qualifier. For the time being, it's not the best solution, as we typically don't use a team or county name for the dab qualifier, but it's a first basis for keeping them apart. If a hurling fan is later prepared to look into it, he might change the links and separate them by year of birth which would be the more common way of doing things. Greetings, and thanks for getting in touch. --Midas02 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've posted to Talk:Paddy O'Brien, showing that there were two men of that name in County Cork, and I've removed Clonbanin from the dab page accordingly. I'll leave it up to you what you want to do with the red link in the Clonbanin Ambush article. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt
I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Forum-shopping move request
Hi Midas02

You are quite entitled to disagree with the closure of any discussion, as you did with my closure of the Alejandro_Villanueva move request on 18 December.

In that case, you should follow the steps listed at WP:Move review. You undertook the first of those, which was to raise your concerns on my talk page. We were unable to reach agreement, so I directed you to WP:Move review.

You can open a move review at any time, and that option remains open. What you are not entitled to do is to simply make a fresh move request, repeating a discussion which has just been closed. That is called forum-shopping, and it is not a genuine consensus is not reached simply by asking the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want.

So I have closed your new move request, on procedural grounds.

If you are still dissatisfied, you are free to open a WP:Move review of the closure of Talk:Alejandro Villanueva. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BrownHairedGirl, as I said previously, I'm not into the Facebook style idle discussions, so I'm going to keep this short.
 * You closed the discussion on the previous move discussion for this name in denial of guidelines and customs on these kind of requests, adding a personal bias into it. When I challenged you on that course of action, I first got a lecture about procedures, and, at a second time, a long string of aggressive and libellous comments, to which I strongly take offence, followed by an explicite refusal to continue the discussion. In the meantime, my attention had been drawn by your aggressive action in altering multiple hundreds of cricket articles, which seems to have upset quite a number of people on the cricket talk page. There as well I noticed you talk a lot about consensus, but you do not wish to participate in it if it goes against your opinion, and prefer to aggressively do whatever you please, including the abuse of admin rights.
 * Independent of this case you have recently been charged with bullying by another user, and I'm going to charge you with the same here, bullying. Given your unacceptable actions I have therefore no desire to challenge the previous move closure.
 * I wasn't the one who opened the first request, and the case wasn't presented properly. I have therefore opened a new discussion, to which I am entitled, following the proper procedure, providing the proper arguments (which wasn't the case the first time), so that a correct discussion can take please, with respect for all who agree or disagree, but providing proper rationale. Since you seem to have an opinion on the case, I would suggest you participate. And if you believe your judgement was right, you shouldn't have too hard a time accepting the discussion could lead to a validation of your judgement.
 * However, if you desire to continue the bullying and the abuse of admin rights, which I have noted on issues not related to this one, you will leave me with not choice but to file a request asking for your rights to be removed, and your conduct to be reined in. I have never been involved in a simple move discussion leading to this much trouble, nor have I challenged one before, so I hope wisdom prevails. --Midas02 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Midas02, as explained before, Wikipedia has a procedure for this: move review.
 * Which part of WP:Move review is unclear to you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dutchman
Why are you Dutchmen so obstinate? In any case, please be warned that further non-consensus edits to Ottoman Palestine will be reported, and are like a WP:ARBPIA violation as well. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know who gave you that idea, because I'm not, but your racial prejudices have been noted. --Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I got the idea from your userpage, which mentions that Dutch is your native language. My racial prejudice must have something to do with the fact I am Dutch myself, and have a sense of humor. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of these days, I have not reported you for your last edit. But if you make one more edit to Ottoman Palestine before establishing consensus for it, your ass is off to WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Frigate Mercedes
Hi. You have reverted my addition of the article Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes in the disambiguation page Mercedes claiming that "This is clearly a partial match, I doubt it would ever simply be referred to as "Mercedes", the Reina Mercedes is already borderline".

I hope that the following arguments will allow you to reconsider your position:
 * The Spanish government's website dedicated to the ship uses the full name for its title but most often it calls her "Fragata Mercedes" or, simply, "la Mercedes".
 * In this article in The Guardian, the ship is again first introduced with her full official name and then called just "the Mercedes" throughout the text.
 * The expression "Nuestra Señora de..." is the equivalent of English "Our Lady of..." and is seldom used in practice when referring to a ship.
 * Given the value of this frigate's sunk treasure and the international controversy that has surrounded it (see Black Swan Project), the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes is nowadays the most famous ship ever to be called "Mercedes".

I look forward to your reply. Best regards, --Hispalois (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Hispalois, thank you for your polite reply. I speak Spanish myself, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to refer to such an old ship in such an informal way. I would say that's usually reserved for more modern vessels. But since you've clearly argumented that such is the case, I've reverted my change and added a comment, otherwise other editors might do the same I had done. Sorry for the trouble, --Midas02 (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Muchas gracias :-) --Hispalois (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DeBresser
I have been having similar issues with Debresser. Please let me know if there is a way I can get involved to help put a stop to his aggression. Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, this is a bit of a tricky question, so I'm not really sure how I could help. I noticed someone else already replied to you, and my standpoint is more or less the same. There is a section in the help pages where new editors can get help from more experienced people, so I would advise you to go there and get someone to help you further. It may lead to something getting a third pair of eyes involved. --Midas02 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FindAGrave!
Come to Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites where we are discussing changing the wording for using Findagrave. I want to emphasize that using the biographical text is forbidden, but using the description of the tombstone and the burial location is ok. The previous wording is ambiguous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for California Agricultural Labor Relations Board
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;California Agricultural Labor Relations Board &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Güe(rill)a (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wormwood (plant)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wormwood (plant), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://english.my-definitions.com/fr/definition/wormwood.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Karaite cleaned up
Hi Midas02, I cleaned up the Karaite disambiguation and removed the notice you placed here if however I did not do well enough yet, please do restore the notice. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , have a look at WP:DDD please, as the page you left behind was violating MOSDAB guidelines on multiple points. I've fixed the page, so it is fine as it is now. --Midas02 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that although there are some contradictions on the page now. After I have read the rules I will try again and ask again for you to check if that is ok? YuHuw (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules are quite vast, so it's probably quicker if I help you to make the modifications you are after. In your opinion, what's contradicting then, and what would you like to change? --Midas02 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be delighted to! Thank you for the offer! :D I just first have to deal with someone who is incessantly firing personal attacks at me and will get back to you as soon as that is sorted if the fates allow. :) YuHuw (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems my harassers have gone on vacation or something together now so I am back to work with you on this. To facilitate discussion, I have made an edit for you to see the inaccuracies between it and the stable version for you to revert if you wish and re-work into a proper dab page when you have a moment to spare. Wishing you all the best. YuHuw (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at some of the things you added.
 * Karaims a term uniquely for East European Karaites -> this is not allowed as it doesn't contain a blue link. Every entry needs a blue link.
 * Russian Karaites, a Judaizing sect of Russian Christian origin treated together with Subbotnik Jews -> this entry has issues because the article does not describe what Russian Karaites are supposed to be
 * What's the meaning of this: "Karaims a term uniquely for East European Karaites"? --Midas02 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Russian Karaites is disambig while most of the cases the it  means Crimean Karaite for example Grigorjev here writes that Russian Karaites are speaking Tatar Language intending  Karaim language of Crimean Karaites:

«…Заметим только, что наречие татарского языка, которым говорят Русские Караиты, не заключает в себе ни малейшей примеси еврейских слов, оборотов или каких-либо других следов того языка, которым должны были говорить их предки, если эти предки точно были евреи. …обстоятельства эти невольно наводят на мысль: … по крайней мере, в наших глазах… караимы… потомки тех турок-хазар, которые, как известно, исповедовали закон Моисея и владели Крымом с VIII по XI век»
 * So Crimean Karaite should not be removed from Russian Karaites page. So this page need to be at least disambig.
 * This page is not the only RS Fake of the author that you defends. For example Karait name for Kheraid is used only in old publications of Dunlop. It should be not presented as the mainstream name of Kheraid tribe.Please look at my notes at admin board ,the history of consensus map removal to see that his edits are motivated by very specific POV ignoring other editors argumentation  Неполканов (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah it seems i spoke too soon. I will reply to this on the admin board which "Неполканов" brought up while pointing out that he is trying to mis-use my own reference which he tried to remove as no RS here . Thank you for your efforts Midas02. YuHuw (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you take another look at Karaite please sir if you get a chance? I made the following changes to your version based upon the references mentioned. I hope they are ok. Best regards. Also you might be interested in a deletion discussion going on here. YuHuw (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to bring to your attention this example how this editor distorts the sources -following is Grogorjev's original translation:

We note only that  dialect of the Tatar language', which is spoken by Russian Karaites, does not contain the slightest impurity Hebrew words any phrases or other traces of the language, which would have to say their ancestors, if these accurately ancestors were Jews. ... These circumstances unwittingly suggest: ... at least in our eyes ... Karaites ... descendants of the Khazar Turks who, as is known, practiced the law of Moses and held the Crimea from VIII to XI century "
 * So obviously the article is about Crimea and Turkic(Tatar) speaking Crimean Karaites and not Russia (residence place of Russian speaking Russian Subbotniks converted to Judaism many centuries after Khazar disappearence) Неполканов (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Khazaria was a Volga Kingdom with its capital at Itil (modern day Astrakhan) and extended down into the Caucasus and across the Kerch staight into Crimea. Only a tiny fraction of Khazaria was in Crimea. Being a real Scholar Grogorjev (unlike exposed puppet Неполканов) certainly knew that very well. It is well known that the descendants of the Khazars are the modern citizens of Russia who live in the Caucasus and along the Volga. Even Неполканов himself rejects the fully debunked and discredited Crimean Khazar theory which Неполканов now accepts just to be contrary. YuHuw (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at the Russia map: Only Crimea utended by Grigorjev and is not at Volga and Caucasus and Astrahan is not Itil, Grigorjev is widely cited in Crimean Karaites modern publications as approval of their non Jewish ethnical origin. Crimean Karaites are leaving in Crimea,Ikraine Lithuania Poland but not at Volga. Russian Subotniks are not leaving in Crimea. They are  Slavonic Russian speakers only and  never mentioned to have any relation to Turkic Khazar people Неполканов (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to your comment at Talk:Karaites. YuHuw (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Broadcom
I noticed you have contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation and/or Broadcom Limited. Just a quick note that there is a discussion here about whether or not Broadcom should be a disambiguation page or refer solely to Broadcom Corporation. Cheers! Talk to SageGreenRider 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your persistent nagging has left me with no choice...
...but to nominate you for adminship. If you think you're up for it, I'll put in the nomination tomorrow afternoon. Just let me know. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha... Well, I had been considering it as well, but only as it would give me the power to move pages and apply other fixes without having to 'bother' someone else. I'm not prepared to take on routine maintenance tasks, though, if that would be considered to be part of the job, as I don't have that much time for it. I'm admin on other websites and databases as well, and have to balance my time. So up to you if you feel I fit the description. Thanks! --Midas02 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do, and I will. There is no mandatory admin action, although I would hope you'd put some amount of time into using the mop to close WP:RM discussions when there's a backlog, and block the occasional vandal who crosses your radar. Brace yourself. I'll put the nom in tomorrow at 6:00 PM EST sharp. bd2412  T 05:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the matter a bit further, I'm going to put this off for a week, to give you time to reconcile any lingering disputes. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you cleared up everything? bd2412  T 01:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I'm on speaking terms with everyone. --Midas02 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean that there were some specific disputes that you have had based on comments on the page (I'm looking at the and  sections above, in particular).  bd2412  T 23:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't got much to do with the second person. He has been sent off repeatedly to ANI in matters not related to me, it's a miracle he's still editing. On the first account, that was an admin misbehaving, but I never even bothered to go into it. It wasn't worth my time. --Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, those are the things that are likely to come up in an adminship bid. Be prepared to handle questions about them diplomatically. I'll launch the nomination Friday evening. bd2412  T 03:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Grassi
The footballer is not the meaning. The judge is President of the Constitutional Court. You should then consider the importance of the role played, in fact the President of the Constitutional Court is the fifth position in the State and is really absurd to compare it with a modest little-footballer. I'd understand if you to talk to Platini, Maradona, Pele. .. --100% Reporter (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I understand, but there are certain things to take into consideration. First of all, this is English Wikipedia. So yes, that person might have an important role in Italy, but it doesn't necessarily make him famous with English speakers. I would even hazard to guess the footballer would be much more renowned. Secondly, this is a WP:TWODABS situation, where we have only two existing articles by that name. In this case, a choice was made to prefer the footballer over the judge. On WP:TWODABS you will find some explanations on the guidelines leading to such a preference. And lastly, there are currently a great deal of links pointing to the footballer's article, so that article can't just be moved as it would break those links.


 * But as I stated, you are welcome to challenge that choice. If you feel both are equally important, open up a case at WP:RM. It's not very hard, and then editors will evaluate your arguments and decide if they want to move the articles. I'd encourage you to go down that route if you feel you have a point. Best regards, --Midas02 (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University
Hi, can you tell me what you think of my editing of Panthéon-Assas University?

Someone with different IP addresses try to delete it (Panthéon-Sorbonne page also) and say it is biased, but all my changing are facts with sources. I do not see how it is biased. He refuses to talk. What to do, since there are several IP addresses?

Thanks!--Launebee (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. For starters, I'm not sure "they refuse to talk", they may quite simply not be aware there's a discussion going on on the talk page. I've alerted them to it. Also be careful with the 'vandalism' comments. Having a different opinion is not vandalism.
 * Now, they are calling you biased. As a matter of disclosure, could you state if you have any involvement with both universities?
 * I had a proper look at both articles. I'm not sure I agree with the stuff you recently deleted on Panthéon-Sorbonne. Some of it was quite informative and should have been kept. And then there's the thing on ranking, and the "top" law school. This whole ranking thing may be a rather French obsession, I believe it should be toned down and rewritten for an international audience. They may not be interested on rankings which are only for French internal use. I've left my comments on the talk page, so let's continue the discussion over there. --Midas02 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In Panthéon-Sorbonne, I removed things which were either false either with no source at all and probably not so true. I have links with several French universities, including Panthéon-Assas (but I have reasons to like Panthéon-Sorbonne and some links with it too). --Launebee (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My final comments

 * Dear Midas, since I am doing research these months I am unable to come back and participate in Wikipedia for a while. Therefore, I am unable to be involved in the issue more than I have been so far. Nevertheless, I want to express here my final comments just to summarize the point:
 * User:Launebee has made very subtle upward biased editions on the article Panthéon-Assas University, while some very subtle downward biased editions on Panthéon-Sorbonne University. For instance, right now the article of Panthéon-Assas states: Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in national rankings and calls itself "the top faculty of law in France" (ref). Which is (if not intended to be biased) at least misleading (the sentence in bold), since some national rankings like this classify universities based on the type of degree 1, whereas the very well know World/International rankings (which are also important and cannot be considered separate) show a different perspective even when one focuses on "Law"
 * When I say "subtle" biases, I mean: the use of just certain references that support certain statements, ignoring others that does not; the biases to be more condescending with one article over another (not applying the same criterions), etc.
 * Panthéon-Sorbonne University was also kind of upward biased before (although, it was clearly referenced). However, what it should be done is to give equal treatment to both articles (considering both international and national rankings for both universities in the same way).
 * Although, this cannot be granted for sure, User:Launabee editions are all somehow related to Pantheon-Assas . In the P-A article itself, and also in an article he created: Law schools, colleges and academies in France. Thus, at least leaving the impression to be somehow involved with P-A university.
 * As a way to keep neutrality and equal treatment for both articles. I would support that third editor (not involved neither with P-A nor with P-S university) be the one how could edit and summarize the articles of both universities with the standard of the English Wikipedia.
 * Since I have just seen the article on P-S University and one new user called User:Xismrd reverted U:Launabee editions, I want to state in advance (just in case) that I am not in any form involved with User:Xismrd, and that I don't pretend to follow the editions due (unfortunately) to my busy agenda these upcoming weeks. Nevertheless, I do hope for the benefit of both articles, an Admin or a third editor could improve the quality of both articles, while at the same time avoiding any (even subtle) favoritism. Kind regards.--73.212.115.205 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks. I believe your comments mostly match the remarks I had already left on the articles' talk pages. I will make sure they get some unbiased attention. --Midas02 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone has important things to do, it is easy to refuse to talk!
 * talk says I am biased, but all my editing has been made with sources and he wanted to cancel my editing of Panthéon-Sorbonne to get back to a version with clearly false statements and some clearly biased rethoric. I am not the one who is biased. You put statements without proving that. The only example you give is not a good one: it is a fact. Ok I forgot to precise in law, I will do that. But I am not the one with biased editing. --Launebee (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My editing seems to be in favour of Panthéon-Assas, but it is only because the previous version were clearly biased in favour of Panthéon-Sorbonne. I only wanted to give a fair presentation of both universities, which have both advantages and inconvenients. In the opposite, the other editor refuses to talk, did not put any disclosure about his links with Panthéon-Sorbonne and wanted to go back with a article with clearly false statements and without sources. I do not thnik it is my editing which is biased in any way. --Launebee (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging from edit summaries
Thanks for cleaning up after me in Template:Scheduled tribes of West Bengal! I just noticed that you linked to my user page from the edit summary and I was wondering if you meant it so that I could get notified about it. But user mentions in edit summaries don't seem to trigger notifications. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, it was meant to notify you. But I agree, pinging behaves rather curiously. I never get notified, even when people mention me in page content. One of Wikipedia's mysteries. --Midas02 (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Territorialism primariy topic discussion
As you tagged the page for cleanup, it would be great to get your perspective on the further discussion at Talk:Territorialism. Thank you, -- Nataly a 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Meredith Hunter
I have just reverted your change here before I realised that there is another noted Meredith Hunter. With only two options, however it is more usual to use a hatnote so I will try to do this. Britmax (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since his death is the title of the article I have linked to that. Britmax (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plebeina hildebrandti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ndebele. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Broadcom (disambiguation) AfD?
Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Midas02
Congratulations, you have been nominated for adminship. If you would like to accept this nominate, please read Advice for RfA candidates, then proceed to Requests for adminship/Midas02 and answer the standard questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Many admins (myself included) have not been granted the tools on first request, so don't be disheartened. It's up to you what you do, though withdrawing from a clearly failing RfA shows understanding of consensus procedure, and saves you and the community further grief. In my experience those who do withdraw from a clearly failing RfA have a better chance of becoming admins in the future than those who stick it out against the odds. But the choice is yours.
 * As regards your response to Q5. You are probably unaware that users can respond to bots. If you had gone to the bot's talkpage to report a false positive you would have read the notice that Coren left which explains what you did wrong (you didn't leave an attribution), and what steps you should take - such as reporting the mirror site to Coren.
 * There is much to learn on Wikipedia. The more involved a person is on the site, the more reading they do of guidelines and policies, and the greater range of activities they do, the quicker they learn. Keep an open mind, and listen to advice, and you should do OK. Keep well.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll add my good wishes as well; I can definitely see a successful RFA in your future. But you do have to get past the idea of "winning" arguments.  Dennis Brown wrote the following a while back.  It's something that's help me keep my tongue in check here.
 * "Let me share one last tid-bit: One of the reasons I've enjoyed the ears of so many around here is that you never know who gets on my nerves and who doesn't. I keep my cards close to my vest, so outside of vandals/socks/trolls, you really have no idea how I feel about much of anyone. But I assure you, I have no less emotion than you about some people, but I find it serves my purposes better to keep emotion out of it, and in return, others don't discount my opinions due to my personal feelings. If you have a good argument (and you usually do) you would be amazed how how persuasive it can be when there is no question that it is based in logic and reason, and not an emotional reaction. When I learned how to do this, an amazing number of doors opened up for me."
 * Hope to see you editing again soon. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your RfA
I'm here to inform you that I have gone ahead and closed your RfA early per WP:SNOW. I did this as to not hash out something that might make you feel uncomfortable. If you want to continue the RfA, I will not object to a reversal of the close.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 14:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it turned out this way. However, hopefully there are some takeaways that will improve your performance before the next try. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * To avoid another unsuccessful experience I would advise considerably longer, at least a year, and during that time to pick up knowledge of how Wikipedia works, to do some meaningful work (taking part in and closing discussion, content creation - preferably up to Good Article level, clearing backlogs, ivoting in AfDs, etc), to avoid conflict, to avoid derogatory or combative personal remarks, and to reach out and help others. Going for another RfA too soon wouldn't be helpful. I would suggest that before you go for another nomination that you consult with an experienced admin, particularly one with experience at RfA, such as User:Worm That Turned, User:WereSpielChequers, or User:Kudpung. While you might feel down now, what I have noticed is that the Wikipedia community loves a user who has problems, and then works to overcome those problems. They, indeed, like such a user better than a user who has never had a problem. I think there are a number of positive reasons for this. Anyway, if you do manage to turn things around, you will be in a very good position to pass a future RfA. Good luck.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Midas02. I was watching your RfA while it was up. I second User:SilkTork's advice. Your editing and my editing at the time of my first RfA have a lot in common. I was very focused on citation and layout cleanup relative to other endeavors. When I failed my first RfA, it was not a good feeling. But in the end I think failing an RfA can be a good thing. I'm sure if you try again in the future, things will go better. Keep your head up, expand upon some of the advice given and you'll prove the naysayers, who had a lot of valid points, wrong. For me, my editing dropped off for a while but I eventually returned. Once back — although I was no less committed to the idea of a free encyclopedia — I had more of an emotional detachment to my edits than before. This is exactly the kind of attitude that will best serve a person as an admin. So take your closure in stride, learn and grow from the experience, and return stronger again. Chin up! Jason Quinn (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

DisamAssist
Hello, and thank you for your improvements to DisamAssist which I've been using a lot recently. Just to let you know that I've plagiarised some of your work (and Qwerty's) at User:Certes/DisamAssist, to make a minor improvement to the core and as a way of doing something useful while brushing up my JavaScript skills. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dr Shivam Dwivedi


The article Dr Shivam Dwivedi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please disregard. The article in question was hijacking your perfectly fine page and then moved.  What a mess. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)