User talk:Bdb484/Archive 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Germán Trejo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-vandalism unit

Just a heads-up—the counter-vandalism unit is pretty much a defunct project, and has been for some years now. It is unlikely that a request on the project's talk page will result in any useful or timely response.

For ongoing problems related to a biography of a living person (a BLP, in Wikipedia-speak), you're likely to have better luck raising the issue at the BLP noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is useful information. I'll head over to BLPN now. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oswego Lake

You've made some great edits to this article. That Willamette Week piece is very significant, especially with the comment from the sheriff's department. The part that I think needs a little more context is that I don't think the "public" status of the lake is quite as settled as your edits indicate; the Lake Corp argues that the lake is essentially an artificial power reservoir and therefore the state ownership doctrine doesn't apply. They have some legal firepower behind that case. In any case, they have de facto controlled it for 70 years--with the cooperation of the city and general assent of the populace. The WW reporter's ability to go on a 400-acre lake and not get caught didn't really prove anything--even if the sheriff won't arrest him, the city has indicated it could do so for violation of city park rules. Anyway, I'm going to add some more info that I think will clarify a bit, but if you want to discuss further, let's do so on the article talk page. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Corp.'s arguments seem a bit specious to me, given the fact that no one in authority to uphold them has any inclination to do so, but you're probably right that they should be given some more prominence, given the weird perception that they've cultivated surrounding their authority. I'll try to punch something in to make that more clear. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I have a couple other interesting citations that I'll add to flesh this out a bit more. I also don't find the arguments particularly compelling, but it's also not settled law yet. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks for the help and feedback. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Barnstar!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.110 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RAND Corporation

notable participants removed and no reason given for edit. Please explain. p.s. I'm a novice here. User:Dianne93101 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Dianne. I took out that list because it was not cited. The rules for citing information are listed here. If you pull up the edit history, you should be able to see a notation next to the edit indicating that this was why the information was pulled. If you're able to hunt down some reliable sources for those names, I'd encourage you to put them back up with citations. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location in lead of the Zoroaster's article

Hey. This version of the article says ...was born in the eastern part of ancient Greater Iran. Idk why was this removed without explanation; I restored it in the lead. 182.181.247.195 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I took it out because it was an uncited addition to the article. If you can find a reliable source for it, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't go back in. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

</noinclude>The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
— ~~~~


3O

The 3O Wikipedian refused to clarify his position per his own "standards" and recommended that the matter be taken at DR, RFC, or relisted at 3O. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you already have a third opinion, as well as fourth, fifth and sixth opinions. You may wish to instead pursue WP:DRN or WP:RFC. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What we actually have is two editors including me discussing the matter, a third who just posted to personally attack me, a fourth who side commented on something slightly related, and a fifth who can't properly give a third opinion. The 3O request is perfectly justified. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with an opinion does not invalidate it. I recommend pursuing WP:DRN or WP:RFC. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it did. It's difficult to have a dialogue when the 3O Wikipedian refuses and cites his own rules. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you could use some more input. I recommend pursuing WP:DRN or WP:RFC — Bdb484 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Tomislav_Nikolić#Request_for_third_opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 30 review of the Michael Roach article. I will try to follow your advice.  :} Abhayakara (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Thanks for catching the many copyvios you've sent for speedy deletion; I've been deleting them. There are many somewhat confusing details in the way we handle these problems, and you should gradually learn the specifics--it helps to have things like this done in a uniform way. The "courtesy blanked" tag is not used for copyvio--it has a specific use for AfD and similar discussions where the details of the discussion should be made less visible. For copyvio, it is sufficient to just replace the article content with the speedy tag, as explained at WP:CSD#G12. For suspected or but not proven copyvio, or copyvio where there are multiple sources, or possibly usable free content, speedy deletion is not used: they are instead tagged with {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}, using it to replace the contents; the article is then listed at WP:Copyright Problems. (that page has a detailed discussions of the various possibilities.) DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boléro

I reverted your edit of removal of large parts of Boléro. It's not a BLP, so removing unsourced material is not urgent. Tag it and fix it enventually: little steps are fine. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big steps are also fine. I'll check back in at some point in the next month or so to see if citations have been added. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Falls Church a County?

The Falls Church entry has extensive references to the nuances under which it is considered a county for certain statistical purposes. Kindly familiarize yourself with the full entry before resorting to wholesale deletion. Per WP guidelines, IAR is not a first resort, but rather a last resort, and it's the equivalent of going nuclear when all else fails. As you are new to the topic of Falls Church, please engage more knowledgeable substantive experts on the talk page before resorting to random deletion, which appears to be vandalism. Thank your for helping to strengthen Wikipedia, and best regards. 2222ARL (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bdb484" considers the above comment to be offensive and lets me know on my talk page. For those who care.... 2222ARL (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking" 30's

Please do not remove the 30's you claim to have taken, as what you do is ask for clarification of the issue rather than actually providing one. Leave the listing on and when you actually have provided a 3O, remove it.Curb Chain (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I took a look at the Nemesys article and just quailed in despair. Nice job rewriting it—it actually looks like a wikipedia article now, and does a good job of conveying to a reader what they might want to know about Nemesys! Abhayakara (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ENAC

Hi there ! Thanks again for the 3rd opinion provided at ENAC. Would you mind adding an opinion on the use of {{see also}} for a category ([1]) ? Cheers, — Racconish Tk 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Binghamton University

Hello! I noticed you reverted my edit under the premise of WP:NOTLYRICS. Articles on other major universities (as well as some minor) frequently contain information about their alma mater/ school song, including in many cases the lyrics. Consensus seems to be that this is perfectly fine, so long as the lyrics and information pass muster as far as WP:V is concerned. I'm going to replace the lyrics for now, but if you strongly disagree, please feel free to drop me a note and we can continue this discussion on the article talkpage. Cheers! 81M (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template of first ladies and gentlemen

Hi good day, newbie here, I need help, can you please check if I did it correctly?

Thank you!! Urville86 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you did it correctly because I don't know what it is you did. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Goblet Drum Page

Hi there, you left a message on my talk page and suggested me to contact you if I have questions. Well, I have. Please help with to approve the content I submitted. I used page information about goblet drum in German to research and write for the page in English. What shell I do in such situation? Please advise. I also have some good external sources to link to, would that help. Thanks in advance. I will copy my reply to my own talk page, because I am not to this (yes, new :)) and I am not sure how to communicate here correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenosis (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. All of the content you added needs to include citations to reliable sources. Following those two links should give you all the information you need about how to do that. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning

The material you have repeatedly deleted from the Steeler Nation page was the product of several credible and relevant sources and citations, sources and citations that have grown beyond the bar of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Please use the talk page before repeatedly ignoring and undermining multiple sources and citations. Thank you. — Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what material you're referring to, but thanks for the heads-up! — Bdb484 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we resolved this on the talk page for SN, I re-added them per your clarification, not sure how the deletions could have happened but I appreciate you addressing it quickly. MarketdiamondMarketDiamond 02:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Steeler_Nation#Hillbilly_and_Appalachia_references.". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the title to this location: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steeler_Nation.23Criticism. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the spirit of "assuming good faith" and that Dispute Resolution is about "content" not "conduct" I would hope you would clarify or reword:

  • a) your 1st 3 paragraphs (drivel, consensus, vandal) had nothing to do with myself nor edits.
  • b) your "hammered with filibustery posts", filibuster denotes that I am simply typing for typings sake to take up time and space (which is false), my posts were long to further clarify your requests of: "You'll need to bring reliable sources of your own to support your arguments." and later: "I'm still not sure what you're saying" among others. I find the word choice unnecessary and offensive since (to me) you had requested exactly that and failed to let it known that you perceived yourself as being "hammered", which was obviously not the intention.
  • c) "material" is not clarified as only PNT's "wt" and "hb" (opposed to all "Criticism").

Thou puzzled by this, I am attempting to consider points in an honest, open minded and civil way, I would sincerely appreciate that in return since the DR process is about the content rather than who said what when and why. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) I agree. That was why I prefaced those comments with a statement explaining that they were intended to provide background to the content dispute.
B) I don't agree with your interpretation of my wording, but I'm happy to change it to town it down a little. My point was simply that your posts were not concise enough to make your point clear. FWIW, you may have better luck if you keep talk page responses shorter.
C) I'm not sure what you're saying.
— Bdb484 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On point B I would appreciate that effort, along with A's clarity that any "vandal", "drivel" is not reflective of any editors contributions concerning this most recent "dispute", I feel that clarity of making it clearly background would focus any future responses and eliminate potential confusion that there are editor conduct concerns. In the spirit of keeping things concise and making clear points, my C concern (your quote of: "demanding that the material be taken down") should specify only h.b., w.t. and fanbase=appalachia simplification, especially since the title is #Criticism and other editors have made changes outside of those in the paragraph (besides that I requested it and never demanded). Focusing on those 3 terms I feel we can keep things as simple and concise as possible. Marketdiamond (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler Nation

Hi Bdb, I saw your revert and edit comments. To be clear, I had no idea there was a discussion going on elsewhere until after I made the edits. There was no notice on the article page. I found the discussion afterwards, and posted my thoughts there. In any case, you reverted edits I made which had nothing to do with your debate (along with ones that did), in particular, the "Famous fans" section, which I cleaned-up to list the names instead of having them lumped together in a clunky paragraph. Quite a debate you guys have going on. I added my name there only because I found that discussion after making the edits. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, even if the Phoenix New Times content ends up staying, there are other problems (as I noted in the various edit comments and in the dispute discussion) that must be addressed, such as the non-allowed Examiner.com cites, the redundant first and second sentences of the paragraph, out-of-context writing, synthesis violation, POV language, etc. And sources that don't support some of the content. Well, you get the idea. ;) These were the redundant sentences that opened the paragaraph: "Like other large and vocal fan bases, Steeler Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams. They have occasionally been described in unflattering terms by sports journalists in other cities." They both say the same thing, except one mentions fans and teams, the other mentions sports journalists. I merged them. Anyway, if you look at each edit I did indivdually and read the edit comment for it, I'm sure you'll clearly see that I was trying to be as fair and accurate as possible, while also of course adhering to Wikpedia guidelines. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have an opportunity

To revise (and delete) the "try . . . to present his arguments", factually false (and non cited) points, accusatory language and the translating repackaging conveniently sans my major point here: [2]. I'd love to read cited and researched "arguments" of yours free of terms like "suspect" etc. To avoid confusion this is my assumption of good faith. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking for. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply state exactly that on noticeboard. Instead of "I'll try to present what I believe is his argument" " I suspect that Marketdiamond" "why his arguments are invariably couched in sprawling lectures about the minutia" (when IRWolfie and your request was exactly for that) "anything else that will keep us from simply applying WP:V" (again the current request is for "source" and "text"). I can go on, but the constant reference to "argument" the mixing and matching of naming me constantly then following it with a point some other (you fail to name them) editor made when your intro it with what you think I'm trying to say, and dividing my single points to separate ones that seem not to make sense. To the limited extent you answered a few of them you provide no citations which I assumed was IRWolfie request at this stage.
Back to simply, if you wish to question one of my points quote it properly and provide citations to your claims (NY Times is free? etc.) since that is the stage of discussion and please refrain from any attempt to translate or repackage my points, the weak "I can't speak for . . . but for brevity's sake, I'll try to present what I believe is his argument" can be extremely destructive. Thank you.Marketdiamond (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have to admit to being lost with certain points you're trying to make. I think that you'll be able to communicate your point of view more clearly if you include subjects and predicates in more of your sentences. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's increasingly clear you don't appreciate it and I say this regretfully, I can see that you are misquoting and taking out of context what I said on the articles discussion+talk page weeks ago making me aware that you do understand at least the larger points of my warning to you this evening. As a final token of good faith I'll repeat myself yet again, you responded to a Noticeboard request for sources and text with neither but then repackaging and translating points of another editor (and doing an extremely poor job of it while ignoring a few of my main points) and admitting to it as partially your purpose. You are not the volunteer and we are not on the articles talk page, respond all you like, don't respond for me or take me out of context, and it would show good faith to answer IRWolfie's request, not tell everyone what I meant to say. Marketdiamond (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how we're supposed to come to a consensus if we can't articulate each other's points of view. If my articulation is wrong because I misunderstood one of your points, you should feel comfortable correcting me. If it's wrong because you could have worded it better, you should feel comfortable correcting yourself. I don't think anyone has to be perfect when trying to understand and be understood through online communication. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the limited extent you answered my request (sans "present his") I commend and thank you. Will consider your suggestions.Marketdiamond (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Derogatory slurs injected into NFL fanbase and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Marketdiamond (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daguerreotype

You undid my recent edits because (you say)they didn't seem constructive. As it happens I have written a good deal of the article as it stands.

I was highly critical of one passage that was trying to explain the chemistry of silver photography. This description would apply more or less to any silver process that started with a light sensitive material consisting of siver halides (silver iodide, bromide and silver chloride) that are chemically reduced to metallic siver to form an image. The author had only the slightest grasp of the process and the descripition was full of blunders. I wrote sort of teacher's comments in red pencil (NO!) etc, because to get on with the article this had to go and I said so on the talk page. There was a comment on the article that an expert's help was needed. I thought that was me.

Another feature that was a false idea is that as one process replaced another, it was because the newer process was more convenient and better quality, taking for granted that all changes are for the better. This is not true, and it was repeated over and over here and in other articles on photographic processes. It is true that exposure times got shorter and shorter, but the image quality in old processes is why people still do them today. There was often better gradation in old processes. In the 1960s there was a fashion for "soot and whitewash" /more graphic, it was said.

So part of my aim was to erase that passage, which I am glad has been done. (I know people react negatively to large erasures, but there was a flag to ask for an expert to improve the article).

The other additions I made I thought were ok (on how the Daguerreotype camera set standards and a design for light tight plate holders that was followed in subsequent cameras for the processes that followed. So I will see if they are worth retaining. Best. RPSM (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I want to tidy up my talk page. Where do I go to find out how to create pages for roughing out material etc. So far I have just tacked them on to my talk page which is a bit untidy. Thanks. RPSM (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.

The questions are:

  1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
  2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
  3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
    GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid

Now that the article is mostly clean, I have started to restore section and pieces for whom I can get some verifiable references.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Award

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
Thank you very much for your thorough opinion on the Christian Science article: it has really helped to move things forward — Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]