Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bdb484: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:53, 19 July 2012 editAbhayakara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users761 edits A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message← Previous edit Revision as of 08:52, 21 July 2012 edit undoRacconish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,824 edits ENACNext edit →
Line 75: Line 75:
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I took a look at the Nemesys article and just quailed in despair. Nice job rewriting it—it actually looks like a[REDACTED] article now, and does a good job of conveying to a reader what they might want to know about Nemesys! ] (]) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I took a look at the Nemesys article and just quailed in despair. Nice job rewriting it—it actually looks like a[REDACTED] article now, and does a good job of conveying to a reader what they might want to know about Nemesys! ] (]) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
|} |}

==ENAC==
Hi there ! Thanks again for the 3rd opinion provided at ENAC. Would you mind adding an opinion on the use of {{t|see also}} for a category () ? Cheers, <span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">&mdash;&thinsp;''']''']</span> 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:52, 21 July 2012

Hi there. If I left a message on your talk page, keep the thread intact by responding there. Unless the conversation has gone stale for a few months, I'm probably still keeping an eye on it, so there's no need to notify me over here. For old threads, see the archives for 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification

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)

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 Misplaced Pages-speak), you're likely to have better luck raising the issue at the BLP noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)
Looks good to me. Thanks for the help and feedback. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Disagreeing with an opinion does not invalidate it. I recommend pursuing WP:DRN or WP:RFC. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
It sounds like you could use some more input. I recommend pursuing WP:DRN or WP:RFCBdb484 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, and best regards. 2222ARL (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

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[REDACTED] 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)

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 () ? Cheers, — Racconish 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Bdb484: Difference between revisions Add topic