The move review is moot. The recurring dispute indicates that this is not the most stable title, and the discussion reveals that there are numerous incorrect incoming links. The best way to find and fix these is to find and fix all of them. bd2412T 12:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I see something VERY WRONG here. A bot is running on, and it has no public STOP button that anyone can press? How could that ever have been allowed to happen? When a reasonable request reaches the bot owner 6 hours later, they get to casually say NO, and just leave the bot running, continuing to make thousands of edits that might all have to be undone? Is this place run on rules and sense, or whim? Where is oversight? (I don't get to multiply my mistakes a thousand-fold. And there sure is a STOP button hanging over MY head.) There is NO urgency whatsoever to get these edits done. Everything works fine either way; these edits are just prettyprinting. In fact, they are just byp-dab, which is not even a valid excuse for an edit. The bot's edit summaries say "Per requested move discussion.". But I see NOTHING there that commissions or even requests a bot to start filing up the servers. IF someone sees an RfM as a green light to go mass-edit things that don't really need editing, that person MUST regard (or be made to regard) the WP:Move review as a MANDATE to suspend that action immediately! -A876 (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record (now that the stop request and my reaction were (1) ignored and (2) tucked into an archive page), the mentioned bot is User:BD2412bot. My edit history sent me here, but BD2412's pages do not mention BD2412bot. BD2412bot's talk page redirects to User talk:BD2412, so my comments went there; that's why my edit history also lacks the name the bot. I wanted to browse its history, but I almost could not even find the bot. On July 1-2, 2016, BD2412bot went after links to [New York]. Where the context reliably indicated that the link intended the city, BD2412bot changed the link to [New York City] (with or without pipe; I don't care); truly very helpful work. Where the context reliably indicated that the link intended the state (about 1,263 pages), BD2412bot changed the link to [New York (state)] (with or without pipe; I don't care) (as opposed to [New York (State)], [New York (U.S. state)], [New York State], [New York state], [State of New York], [Nueva York (estado)], [Estado de Nueva York], [Novum Eboracum], or just leaving them [New York]). Changing links to [New York] (the article about the state) into links to [New York (state)] (a redirect to that article) is dubious. We suspected that BD2412 was changing the links to [New York (state)] in anticipation of a move to [New York (state)] that was going to happen (a proposal which BD2412 just happened to be refereeing). But then the move was disputed. (And so far it hasn't happened.) Changing to [New York (state)] certainly removed any possibly ambiguity, so I see no need to seek out and undo every change (or change the >5000 pre-existing links to [New York (state)]). I only contend that changing the links to [New York (state)] would add no value if the [New York] article had actually moved, that they were completely unjustifiable before the page moved, and that they should never have been considered until 5 days after the page actually moved. Changing the links to [New York (state)] should never have been started on anticipation of a move, and should have been promptly stopped when that move became unlikely. The sad part is the reaction - BD2412's reaction looks like "nyah nyah, you can't tell me". But BD2412bot actually stopped that project the same day, possibly a right decision by BD2412, or maybe BD2412bot coincidentally ran out of work. BD2412bot still lacks a STOP button; this is something I still don't understand or accept. BD2412 should appreciate the need; he actually [administratively] suspended someone else's bot that he caught making improper edits. -A876 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: I have remove the speedy deletion tag, as that redirect is used for intentional links to the XX disambiguation page (see WP:INTDABLINK). -NiceguyedcGo Huskies! 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
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}} 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 request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mduvekot (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mduvekot: - I created this as a redirect to Pentatonix, and it should remain as one. References can be found in that article. bd2412T 15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand you created the article as a redirect, but Angelcoffee64 removed the redirect and, in their own words, "Added much content". Perhaps the redirect can be restored or the sources added? At the moment it is an unsourced BLP. Mduvekot (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Should an article about a Supreme Court case have both of the following categories--United States Supreme Court cases AND United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court--or just the more specific one (Roberts)? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Only the latter - articles generally should not be in categories that contain other categories also containing the article. bd2412T 19:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. User MZMcBride has been going around to the Supreme Court case articles with "of the C.J. so&so Court" cat and ornamenting them with "United States Supreme Court cases" cats. I thought that was incorrect but I wans't sure. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page as well, but Category:United States Supreme Court cases is an exception to our otherwise insane and incoherent categorization rules. As the category description page notes with the {{all included}} template, this category includes every U.S. Supreme Court case, even if the case is categorized within a subcategory. I'd estimate that somewhere above 98% of U.S. Supreme Court case articles are in this master tracking category. My recent edits were trying to close the gap so that the articles will be included in reports that assume that every article is a member of Category:United States Supreme Court cases. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I was unaware of this exception. In AWB it is possible to generate a recursive list of everything in subcategories of a given supercategory. I would have hoped that such a thing was possible here. bd2412T 04:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
MediaWiki's categorization system makes no guarantee that you'll have a sane tree structure. What happens when a grandchild category includes its grandparent as a subcategory? Inception?! The arguments against explicit categorization have been exceedingly weak and built upon some future utopia where category intersections are trivial. In response to the lack of easy intersections and cross-referencing of category members, lots of people, particularly on Commons, decry "overcategorization" for some reason. And so we end up with categories such as commons:Category:Nude or partially nude purple-colored people. The whole situation is mindbogglingly silly.
In this case, we have a single master tracking category and it works well enough. If there's some reason to stop using it, we can discuss that, of course. One option that's available these days is to mark the category as a hidden category, though I'm not sure there's much reason to even do that here. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Beer parlour, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Beer parlour and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Beer parlour during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have responded there, thanks. bd2412T 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite confused at how you've structured Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Is it your intent to invite contributors to set forth their arguments a week before opening up "voting"? I'm not familiar with any large-scale RfC which does this. Would it not make more sense to follow the typical structure of Support/Oppose/Neutral/Discuss? All of an RfC is meant to be a discussion of arguments, so separating the votes from their rationales seems ill-advised. It would make it very difficult to assess consensus if editors discuss all of their rationales in one section and then write "Support/oppose per above". Trying to understand your point-of-view on why this structure is necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 00:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
A move request is not an RfC. It is the typical structure of the move request for the requestor to initiate the discussion with their argument in favor of the move. We have done this before on high-profile move requests for Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Manning, and it has worked out very well. bd2412T 00:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is the intention to hat those first two sections once the RM is started, or will everything be open at once at that point? ~ Rob13Talk 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The first two sections should not be edited once the RM is launched. I don't know that we would "hat" them necessarily, but perhaps we would note that they are no longer to be edited. bd2412T 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, by "hat", I just meant close in some sense. Not sure how that would work. That makes perfect sense now; I had misunderstood your intentions on how discussion would be split between the two sections. Thanks for clarifying! ~ Rob13Talk 02:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that section is to be worked on now, and closed Thursday night actually (I have absolutely no objection if more time is desired to craft the argument, but it shouldn't be needed). bd2412T 00:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks... Understood now! So I've made a start.
I think it would be good to update the hatnotes and/or the text immediately below the Move request heading to make it explicit that some sections are already open for editing, but I'd prefer not to be the one to do it for obvious reasons. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for action on the above suggestion.
I am assuming that as the new RM is in the (article) Talk namespace, the arguments should be signed. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Extra time might be advisable if major new arguments are introduced in the last few hours before the sections are due to close. Hopefully not! Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Why did you revert my clearing if the discussion? You said it was not to begin until the 14th. If th is move request is to be above board, people must stick to the rules. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to clarify that now. There are two components to the move request: the proposal, and the discussion. The proposal should be written first, now. The discussion will begin once the proposal is complete, hopefully according to the schedule currently set. bd2412T 20:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks, I really must have misunderstood the process, I've not even been following the discussion since then because I was waiting to come back on the 14th with my evidence. — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pointing to the series is more accurate than pointing to the disambiguation page, and is still an improvement over the status quo ante. I am further refining some of these fixes now. bd2412T 17:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to "propose" the move at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request (possibly without taking a side) and recruit closers? Or does one of us need to do something more?
I note that discussion is ongoing, [1] and I've also contributed in the last few hours, so perhaps it's premature, but I'd be happy to go to the next stage. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone else needs to do that. We could further extend the time, but I'm not sure that would avail anything. Note, in order to show up correctly at WP:RM, the proposal must be made on Talk:New York, and link from there to the subpage. bd2412T 23:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
OK... I'm happy to "propose" the move. Not sure exactly how... I raise an RM normally, but then edit it to point to the subpage, is that right?
But I don't think I should be the one to recruit closers. This should be done by an uninvolved administrator (such as yourself). Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiz Syed 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. for (;;)(talk) 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is of no relevance to me. I only fixed disambiguation links here. bd2412T 14:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, this says "opposing viewpoint" but I guess this applies to the 2 law articles so far because half the credit goes to you. Time for more. Pyrusca (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
HI Im back again. I completed the article Alva Hugh Maddox + A. A. Evans thats basically what I can find. I was wondering if you would like to review it. :) Pyrusca (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, since you posted previously in this discussion, I wanted to request that you clarify your position there regarding this edit based on that discussion. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not catching that the Smallpipes page had been turned into an SIA. I've run into this sort of resolution once before, but I'm still unsure how to apply WP:DABCONCEPT or when something can be appropriately turned into an SIA. For instance, sometimes you get geographical name dab pages that list a whole bunch of places that have the same name. I suspect this is not a suitable SIA, but how is that different from two different, but related, musical instruments? This seems to be a big hole in my understanding, this is not just some esoteric detail that I've missed. Is there anything I can read to learn more, or is it just a matter of watching long enough to grok it? —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 19:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:DABCONCEPT basically asks if you can discuss all the topics under the umbrella of a single broader idea. If you clearly can not (see, e.g., Mercury, Battery, Seal), then the solution is disambiguation. If the topics are closely enough related that you can, then the solution is either a broad concept article or an SIA. bd2412T 19:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to the first two articles as they mention Hillary Rodham Clinton in the '90s context and "Hillary Rodham Clinton". With the last one we could go either way. I will refrain from making more reverts, but I will ask you to reconsider how your edits fit into the context of each article. Also WP:NOTBROKEN. Or if there is a centralized discussion about this topic somewhere and you think I made a mistake, please let me know. Politrukki (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of any "context" wherein we refer to historical figures by any variation of their common name based on the decade in which they are being discussed, outside of their own biography. Perhaps we do so with popes and kings if they adopt a completely different names, but this is not that situation. In this case, in particular, the subject has always been referred to in at least some sources as "Hillary Clinton". bd2412T 12:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable for you request (or give to yourself) autopatrolled. After having created thousands of articles you've met the requirement. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
BD2412 is an admin.. That should be part of the userrights. unlsess the software doesn't automatically do it. Pyrusca (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
HI,
I recently moved Achene to Achene (fruit). I did that because I was writing a draft that became Achene, Belgium. On second thought, I should have kept the accent mark above the E at "Achêne". So I was wondering if you can move Achene (fruit) back to Achene. Thank you. Pyrusca (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi-Court Listener is connected with the non-profit Free Law Project. The link is: Court Listener Please take a look and see what you think-thanks-RFD (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"We work diligently with volunteers to expand our efforts at building an open source, open access, legal research ecosystem" - that sounds an awful lot like a wiki. bd2412T 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mallinson 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. VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This change seems to have simply added a level of redirect to the pointer that wasn't there before. In short "New York" and "New York (state)" both point to "New York", and I don't see why this change was made. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason for the change is described in the discussion linked in the edit summary. The short version is that there are too many incorrect links pointing to "New York" (i.e. links intending the city pointing to the article on the state), and too many links overall to peck through without first moving the correct links out of the search. bd2412T 17:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
For your herculean ongoing effort at cleaning up the incoming New York links. Don't give up, and keep up the good spirit! Diego (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Although, given the sheer number of edits you've accumulated, maybe it's time for you to take a rest for today? ;-) Diego (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually just finished taking a break. I'll have an initial report tomorrow afternoon of some of my more interesting findings during this process. Cheers! bd2412T 23:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you stop changing links to New York with this reasons "Per consensus in discussion at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, replaced: thern New York → thern New York (2) using AWB" as you are changing a direct link by a redirection!
If you're going to make changes, make them accurately. This edit is just one more where New York City was intended, not New York State. 01:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit is also wrong; air mail service was between cities, not states. If you're not far more careful making these edits -- I've spotted at least a dozen errors already -- you are at risk of losing your AWB privileges. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not incorrect; there is no doubt that air mail service proceeding from New York City is also coming from the state of New York. Bear in mind, of course, that the link is already pointing to the state of New York, so if the target was wrong, it is no more wrong than it already was. bd2412T 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the reason why the links are being changed is because of the ambiguity of a link to "New York" meaning "New York City" or "New York State". The most superficial review of the article shows that the air mail service operated between Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New York, all of which are cities. There is no doubt that New York City is the correct link. Further irresponsible edits of this type will result in the loss of your ability to use AWB. Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I am making every effort to perform this task accurately, but there are some situations that are not as clear as others. It would be great if you could help out with this - there are some 75,000 links that need to be addressed here. bd2412T 04:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates 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. Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, this edit was unhelpful and made your difficult job even more so, perhaps only by 0.001% but still unhelpful. I was going to revert but was too late. Andrewa (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! I checked out your user page and noticed that you're quite a prolific editor! I know the AfD was probably an unwelcome development today. (Though with your contribution levels, you're probably used to it.) Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your contributions, and cheer you on as you disambiguate those NY links! Here's a cup of coffee to keep you going! Cheers, and have a good night. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It's the parentheticals. In this case they are part of the actual name of the subject, but usually we see them as disambiguators. bd2412T 15:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I really don't like making more work for other editors, so I'm sorry you had to go back and fix my edits. [2][3] I wasn't aware until now about the changes being made, just thought an editor added a disambiguation link by mistake so I honestly thought I was fixing it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Will New York be moved to New York (state) soon? I'm confused as to why edits such as this one is being made if the article has been moved... Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, this makes sense now! I was too lazy to read all of the discussion. Plus, I knew I'd get a quicker summary by asking you! lol Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United States presidential election, 1824 into United States presidential election in Missouri, 1824. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. bd2412T 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi i dont knownhow to private message someone in this forum. My email is <redacted> and this is in regards to Amadeus the American Record Producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ENKWMS (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The adding of Pepe the Frog under Kek is by no means a hoax. I am rather disappointed you disagree with the addition, but being bold is a good principle to have. Finally, I must ask you to refrain from protecting pages on first instinct if the people that disagree with you reaches two or greater, as you did in this instance. IPs aren't necessarily vandals, and I trust you will take this truth into consideration. 69.47.172.189 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not a question of agreement or disagreement. WP:DABMENTION applies. A link can not be included in a disambiguation page unless the linked article at least mentions the subject; in this case, neither one does. bd2412T 22:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Give it time. There is a reasonable chance such an entry will appear in the next six months. 69.47.172.189 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Once an entry exists, then a line on the disambiguation page can exist, not before. Disambiguation pages are tools to help readers find topics covered somewhere in the encyclopedia. bd2412T 22:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool, see you then. :^) 69.47.172.189 (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. Of course you're right about the inappropriateness of the addition, but I was a little surprised to see your semiprotection of the dab page Kek for six months, combined with pending changes protection, both on the basis of "excessive IP hoax vandalism". I've never seen semi and PC combined before; they're described as alternatives in the protection policy. And there have only been two IP edits altogether since May, plus I noticed an earlier insertion of the same material. I agree those IP edits were silly, but the number of them is modest. Do you see some special problem with the page? It has never been protected before. Bishonen | talk 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
I googled "Kek" and found a robust effort underway through various social media outlets to create an impression that something of substance exists here. That is enough to raise some serious concerns. bd2412T 02:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I warned you that I would report you for edit warring if you continued, and so you have. Kindly self-revert, or find this crusade of yours brought to WP:AN/EW. You do not have consensus for this change, on the page itself or at the other talk page. Lagrange613 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a semi-autonomous bot that scoops up all links to New York and fixes them in concordance with the requirements of the maintenance task. I didn't even realize that this page was in the most recent run. You can prevent it from showing up on this list by adding a {{nobots}} tag to the page. Cheers! bd2412T 01:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not turning off all helpful bots to prevent you from edit warring. You're responsible for all edits coming from your account. And I have to say, if this bot is capable of distinguishing correct New Yorks from intended New York Citys then this invalidates your argument that telling them apart is so hard that you have to pipe New York to its own redirect all over the encyclopedia. Last warning: Please self-revert at Henry DeWolf Smyth. Lagrange613 01:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The bot is not capable of distinguishing anything. It is programmed with the small number of cases where repetitive text strings indicate the correct meaning, leaving tens of thousands of additional links that need to be checked and fixed manually. I would expect you to understand this. bd2412T 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You refuse to revert your most recent edit away from consensus, and so I have reported the incident at AN/EW, as promised. Lagrange613 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Regarding your recent edit to The Lyric (magazine), may I ask why you replaced New York with New York City? The cited source does not specify whether it is talking about the city or the state, so while it is correct to link to the state article, it might be incorrect to link to the city article. If you have more specific information about the headquarters of the magazine, then please cite your sources. (I hope you are not indiscriminately replacing all links to New York with New York City!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonaut (talk • contribs)
I changed the link based on the contextual cues. New York City is a center of publishing, and "New York" is often used to refer to the city, rather than the state as a whole. The previous placename referenced in the article is the city of Norfolk, Virginia, rather than merely the state of Virginia. This makes it likely that if the magazine had moved to a specific location in the state of New York other than New York City (such as Buffalo, New York, or Ithica, New York), the author of this passage would have specified movement to this city by name. bd2412T 12:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it looks you inadvertently added a number of albums to Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes when you changed the type in the infobox of these articles from "Live Album" to "[[Live album|Live Album]]". I believe the infobox albums template does not allow the piping to properly codify, thus being automatically placed in these articles. The type really only need to have the word "live" without any link at all. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to fix it. bd2412T 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think this is done. Cheers! bd2412T 13:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey BD2412, I just wanted to let you know that at least one of your AWB summaries, as left for this edit, was inaccurate - the link was fixed to point to the state. I only mention it in case you are using these summaries to track proportion of mis-links on this topic, and if it is possibly not an isolated incident (a spot check of your recent contribs indicates it is probably a fluke).
Also the other day, I noticed that one of the edits mangled a link, here (second link fixed down). I don't know how automated your process is and whether that was isolated, or part of an automated string of fixes done the same way.
Both of these are obviously not a big deal, I only mention them in case they are potentially part of a series. Given the number of New York (ahem, state) articles that are on my watchlist, your much-appreciated work in specifying these links has meant I get to take a nice trip down memory lane each time I load my watchlist. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary says exactly what it is supposed to: this edit is part of an effort to resolve incorrect links. One step in that resolution is piping correct links so that future editors will not need to check the link again. bd2412T 01:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary says you corrected the link to New York City, while the edit shows that you corrected the link to point to New York (state). Please look again. (And I'm well-aware of the purpose of the project here, I've been an infrequent participant in many phases of the move request at New York, and I support the work you're doing, as I tried to make clear in my comment above.) Antepenultimate (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean now. That is an artifact of AWB automatically adding the expected change to the edit summary, which may differ from something manually changed. I'll see if I can remedy that. bd2412T 01:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
