User:BD2412/Archive 010

Status: Active. bd2412 T Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412 Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind: I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek"). It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page. Cheers! BD2412 Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015-016 017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030-031-032 033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045-046-047-048 049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061 Disam contest Well good. :) But. :) I haven't been in the top 4 in quite some time. So. We'll see. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC) This is a great idea and am hoping to participate. Thank you… and HaPpY eDiTiNg! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) January 2013 The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3778 links in the challenge of January 2013. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Cheers. bd2412 T 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Billy King Im sorry i never sorted the redirect, but why did you delete it. Rather than recreating the page to add the Template:DisambigProject could you please undelete and add the tag removing the redirect, keeps the history which given the move i don't see as a bad thing even though redirects are cheap.Blethering Scot 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Done. However, please note that talk page redirects resulting from page moves are WP:CSD#G6, and are routinely deleted. Please note, also, that page histories are maintained in order to attribute authorship to those who write the materials that are presented in Wikipedia. There is no authorship inherent in a page move. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation BD - I filled out the rest of Fort Fisher and did all of the Battle of Corinth links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Disambiguation help needed., but that's about the extent of my knowledge. If no one steps up to do the other ones, I may put my nose to the grindstone and try to figure out what is what, but I'm relatively inexpert at 20th century conflicts. Cdtew (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, very much appreciated. bd2412 T 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Tabitha (given name) The standard title for given names articles seems to be Name (given name). I am also trying to avoid having the given name page turned into a disambiguation page. The title of the article should be moved back immediately to Tabitha (given name) and the disambiguation page should be separate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) First, you are flatly wrong about the standard title. See Category:Given names; the vast majority of pages on given names are at the base page name. Compare also names like Brian, Roger, and Samantha. Second, do you understand that, per WP:MALPLACED, if Tabitha is not a page on the given name, then the disambiguation page must be at the base page name? In any event, there is nothing to disambiguate, period; per MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC) See also User_talk:Bookworm857158367#Given_name_stubs. PamD 09:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) An unfortunate trend. If this editor persists in pressing his misunderstanding of article-naming policies, a topic ban might be in order. bd2412 T 13:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Disambiguation Yes, better wording. I had two drafts from stream of consciousness and tried to make a coherent whole but came in just shy of the mark. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia manuals considered harmful Hi, thanks for the note on 2-entry DABs. Now I will have to find another sense and start another article, just to save that page. 8-) However, please ponder about this: "whenever an editor is told to go read a style manual, Wikipedia loses another editor." A couple years ago I analyzed the growth of Wikipedia, and it was clear that the editor base has been falling exponentially since 2005-2006. It was steadily losing old editors and failing to recruit new ones. I presume that the trend has not improved. Wikiprojects and talk pages now seem to be deserted dusty halls, feel tempted to write "Hello! Is anybody home?" To me, the cause of the problem is clear: editing has become forbiddingly hard, even for seasoned editors. The vast number of finnicky rules, and their obsessive enforcement (no matter how gentle) by veteran editors, are a big part of that problem. If I were you, I would advise every editor, whenever I had a chance, to not read any of the manuals or rules. Instead, editors should just look at other articles, and try to imitate what they see and like, and improve on it if they can. And if I were top honcho of Wikipedia, The first thing I would do is rm -rf wiki/Wikipedia:*. That would go a long way towards saving this project. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, the rule is reasonable, and I might have done it that way if I had thought more about it. But I was trying to sort out half a dozen articles at the time... (But having a manual page about it? That, I am afraid, does more harm than good...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Revert of change to redirect Hello. You reverted a change to a redirect. I presumed that edit would have been non-controversial in substance. The redirect, as it stood, did not even direct to a "Thema". In contrast, the diambig that was created as a target included a number of actual Themas, as well as the original target. You cited WP:MDP. According to that wikiproject page, I gather that "Thema" should link directly to what is now the "Thema (disambiguation)" page, but should be named "Thema". (As the wp project page says, "This situation is avoidable, as the disambiguation page can exist at Foogle."). That would be best, I think, as Thema properly refers to a number of articles where Thema is significant in the name of the article: such as Thema (rapper), Thema International Fund, Thema macroscia, Thema psammoxantha, Thema Mundi, Thema protogramma, as well as Thema syneidiseos. That's in addition to the target that you re-created for the phrase, which fails to even have "Thema" in its name -- Theme (Byzantine district). Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The fact that there are a large number of possible meanings is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end of it. As you can see, for example, there are a large number of meanings at George Washington (disambiguation) and Apple (disambiguation), but that does not make these the base page names appropriate for disambiguation. The next question is whether there is a primary topic for the term that can be determined from incoming links, page views, and Google hits for the various meanings. In this case, all of the incoming links appear to relate to the Byzantine district. If you disagree with this assessment, the venue for making such a change is Wikipedia:Requested moves, where a request can be made to move the disambiguation page to the undisambiguated title. bd2412 T 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I would think that there are a large number of titles that use that name, but that the one redirected to does not use the name "Thema", would be of moment. And yes -- whenever we have a redirect that is longstanding the incoming links will point to it. That's no mystery. Anyone creating a link to Thema for another reason will automatically see that it points to the wrong place. Or, if they don't, our bot will tend to remind them. It is self-propagating.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC) It may be, but it may also represent settled expectations. Since it is incorrect to redirect a base page name to a page with a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, what you are seeking to do here is to effect a page move. The discussion following a page move request will flesh out these issues. I am in the process of bypassing all of the redirects on these pages in case it is, in fact moved. bd2412 T 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Great. I know that is tedious work, so thanks. I'll wait till the dust clears. Have also added additional themas to the dab page. It is worthy noting, btw, that the target that you reverted to does not attract the most page views of those articles currently on the dab page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) While significant, that too is not the end of the inquiry. Is the "most attractive" article a partial title match for which the word "Thema" alone unlikely to be used? I don't know, but these are things to be brought up in support of a move request. bd2412 T 23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I'm really failing to see anything convincing (to me) for creating a link to an article that: a) fails to even have "thema" in its name; and b) has half the page views of another article on the disambig page. That's half the views even with everyone looking for any other "Thema" ending up on its page. The only thing I can imagine you are considering is long-term usage. But I've just brought to AfD and had deleted pages that were marked for notability five years ago. Nobody paid attention. That happens all the time. That, for example, is why long-term usage on wp is not generally a consideration at AfD or similar places. Indeed, the hatnote on this page was long-term unhelpful, as it failed to point to nearly all the other articles now on the disambig page. I really am surprised that you would restore a link under these circumstances. Non-controversial doesn't mean one couldn't make a poor defense for it as the target; it means that looking at the facts, dispassionately, one sees that there is not legitimate reason to link the article to the current target. Such is the case here. We're not even arguing over whether to link the phrase to the article with twice the page views. Just to the disambig page. Clearly, your direct to the current target send most people to something other than the most read article. We don't need to have a community discussion over things that, legitimately, are non-controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) As I have said, if you wish to have the disambiguation page moved to the base pagename, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. That is the appropriate place for the discussion part of the WP:BRD cycle to be carried out. bd2412 T 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I heard that. I apparently didn't make myself clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Is Lancia Thema the "other article on the disambig page" to which you refer? bd2412 T 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. I only checked a couple, but saw that one had twice the page views of the current target.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I have initiated a move discussion at Talk:Thema (disambiguation)#Requested move. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Many thanks for the kindness. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for going above and beyond to make sure that at the end of the day, whatever was the correct result would be reached, here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC) There is one remaining incoming link to that page, on an index of philosophy terms. If you could figure that one out, I would certainly appreciate it. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Done. There does not appear to be an article on the term at the project, so it is now a redlink.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) WP U.S. Supreme Court Cases in the Signpost The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Your edit rate, I'm seeing 6 or 7 entries of you in Recent Changes at a time. I don't know what you think, but many bots don't edit this fast. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, I'm fast. bd2412 T 05:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC) notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Aqueduct Hi. Instead of simply marking every instance of "aqueduct" as needing disambiguation, why not actually disaqmbiguate them yourself? Most of the time the meaning is clear, and when it is not immediately so, a small amount of research will give the answer. This would be much more helpful than simply tagging the word and leaving the work for someone else to do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC) The article split seems somewhat nuanced to me. I will go back through and try to pick some off, but I would leave it to the experts who are likely watching the articles to take the first shot at fixing them. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I note that the target pages are still under discussion. It is probably best to wait until the dust clears from that process before going about fixing large numbers of links. bd2412 T 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Give Me Your Hand (Best Song Ever) Sorry, you can't A7 a song or record. The performer has an article, so A9 would be out too. As it's a single, you could try prod. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Prodded. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Rihanna articles Sorry for that, but I was really pissed of at the redirect of the article page. Currently this is active. And the real title of the album page should be only 'Good Girl Gone Bad' because it's the most notable of all. So for now you can fix the refs mistake, please. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Sure, on it now. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I've gone through my edit history and reverted the three instances where I made that error. Since it looks like the discussion will resolve the disambiguation links issue, I'll stop this series of fixes now. bd2412 T 17:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Okay. Thanks ^.^ — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for help on Bank stress tests BTW Happy Birthday! Thanks for help on Bank stress tests. There is still some proposed deletion of the stub articles that describe the annual programs but hopefully that can be resolved. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Comprehensive_Capital_Assessment_Review_(CCAR) I saw your strong background in law and wanted to put in a plug for a law topic upgrade and perhaps an area that could capture your intellectual imagination? Regulatory capture in general. Regulatory_capture#American_examples see specifically: CFTC, Federal reserve, OCC, SEC sections Example legal research article on deep capture [[1]]. I don't have a legal background and all the stuff on legal theory was like visiting the land of Oz to me. However fascinating! example of regulatory capture (not much regulatory response) 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss however as of yesterday Senate Investigations [[2]] may at least conduct hearings? [[3]] That group does some nice investigative work [[4]]. I took a look at that Wall Street report and noted 11 Senators, Staff Director, Chief Counsel, Chief Investigator, 4 law clerks, a research clerk, 5 Counselors, Detailees from DOJ, GAO, ICE, SEC; professional staff, consultants, numerous senator's staff, chief and senior investigators, tens of thousands of pages of documents, etc. yet ultimately, not a lot of actual regulatory action? Elizabeth Warren came out swinging a few days ago [[5]] Rick (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I'm an IP lawyer - I avoid banking law like the plague! Well, perhaps not quite that much. bd2412 T 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Intellectual Property can't (for the most part) be economically protected. I remember when Corning sued Sumitomo over blatant violation of their IP rights to single mode optical fibers. During the march to a slow and expensive, but surely thought to be "just and equitable solution" in a clear cut case, Sumitomo managed to successfully ex-appropriate via deposition every last one of Corning's top scientists daily detailed notebooks, complete with the results of years of incredibly expensive research. As Sumitomo paid their paltry fines on the IP infringement they snickered, having obtained an incredible treasure trove of Corning's expensive research for pennies on the dollar. Take a look at that stuff on Regulatory Capture, Posner and the article on Deep Capture. It all applies just as well to USPTO functioning "for the public good" as it does to banking. When the system is radically broken it needs to be fixed. Rick (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Satellite Direct disambiguation page deletion, please block Satellite Direct TV article from possible creation. I know that having information about a topic on a disambiguation page is not a very common practice, however I felt that there should be something in Wikipedia about the Satellite Direct TV marketers. Since you apparently feel otherwise, that is okay, but could you please block the Satellite Direct TV article from possible re-creation? I do not want to see those marketers attempting to use Wikipedia for their advertising purposes again. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The reason we don't have information about topics on disambig pages is that disambig pages are only navigational aids. Think of a disambig page like the index of a textbook. You wouldn't expect to see anything substantive there, just the pages where things can be found in the book itself. However, it may be that there is another article on the topic that should mention something about the company in question here. bd2412 T 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Regardless, could you please reset the block against the creation of a Satellite Direct TV page? I had asked another administrator to unblock it so I could create an article, but then I realized that the company was too scuzzy to deserve a regular article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Advice please Avoiding Edit wars... Sirs: I wish to dearly avoid an edit war. There is an article that has one source, and I am looking for other sources, as I have read the other source, and seen the other source, neither of which I can document now, but easily more noteworthy than the current source. ( the primary source is dead, but it has been documented twice outside the web, ( unfortunately before I was born )). I made the changes, but was reverted without discussion or notice. Article: Light-Foot. Source: Time Life Books on computers. Source: Computer History Museum. Would you suggest, I got to the museum, take a picture of the wire ( that predates me. ), and post it? Would that be original research? The email I got back from the museum: "Oh those idiots[ Wikipedia ]? The wouldn't know the truth if it was drilling into their thick skulls.", personal email. What to do next? I reverted my changes, then re-reverted them, so the page is as [Erroneous] as stands. 67.180.156.92 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) Happy Anniversary Hi BD2412. Congratualtions on making it to the 8 year mark. Very few Wikipedians have been here this long. The community and the project are very lucky to have dedicated editors such as yourself and I thank you for all the time and effort you have donated to the project. Your efforts benefit all of humanity and you and your family should be very proud of this accomplishment. Thank you. 64.40.54.147 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Sex Positive Thanks for your note about the disambiguation and you prefering to keep Sex Positive for the film. I tried to revert to what you say, but couldn't achieve the reversal for some reason myself either. But I have no opposition if you want to make Sex Positive film entry the main and you know your way around. We can always make Sex Positive (disambiguation) and keep the main Sex Positive for the gripping documentary. But you should know I have done huge improvements for all those who visit the page now. This is what we had on 19 February 2013 before I intervened: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sex_Positive_(film)&diff=528140238&oldid=527881460 This is what we have now after my edits of 20 February http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Positive_(film) I am so glad about it. I was watching the film just being fascinated and blown away by this Berkowitz guy.... and I was passing the changes while following the film... werldwayd (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar Per barnstar definition. For sustained daily tedious but needed admin tasks. Respectfully. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, my friend. bd2412 T 02:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation Can you please take a look at MRSA? Someone has fixed all the incoming links, but I'm sure this fairly common term will continue to attract more links if it remains as a dab page. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Based on the statistics, I have proposed a move and redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC) DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28! Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome! For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC) High water mark Great job on this article; it's worlds better than the shabby dab that was there before. Keep up the good work! --BDD (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks! bd2412 T 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Cleanup Hello, BD2412. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at Talk:Bank stress test. Message added 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Trot Mike Cline reversed his close of your move request. We have at least a 4:2 or better vote, but maybe need more supports. Just an FYI that it's still open. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data Hi BD2412, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.) There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it! Please sign up here Announcement on Cato's blog Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC) DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9! Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome! For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Nomination of List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Soviet? Just a heads up: you might want to double check the edit summary used here and elsewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Oops - yeah, that one is from the last round of these. bd2412 T 04:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Immunity (reality television) for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Immunity (reality television) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunity (reality television) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC) You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29 In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at LittleWink's talk page. Message added 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. LittleWink (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Would you be able to assist with "fixing" some syntax in Template:Disambiguation? I was looking at Template:Disambiguation and Template:Disambiguation/doc a little while ago, and I found an issue that might have been accidentally caused by a category deletion in conjuction with the move discussed/suggested by you at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 37#Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages; per the doc, and as proven on the article Fluor, the {{Disambiguation|molform}} tag puts the tagged article into the non-existent Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages. Unfortunately, I am both not very versed in how to find out how this link is happening in the source code for Template:Disambiguation, nor can I edit this template since I am not an administrator. Would you be able to take a look at Template:Disambiguation and see if the syntax causing that tag to link to Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages could be removed? Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Usurpation of Charm on English Wikipedia!?! Hi Esteemed BD2412: I have just noticed a post from you on my Talk page saying that User:Charm has been usurped at "English Wikipedia". Based on what I see here, I assume you meant to tell me the account was usurped on the French Wikipedia? I shouldn't be worried about someone else trying to usurp on English Wikipedia, right? Charm ©† 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)