User talk:BDD/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

OK, sorry I didn't know. Quis separabit? 00:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but while a category is being discussed, it should contain the same articles and subcats it would normally have, otherwise editors will be making decisions based on misleading information. If the category is deleted, then it becomes time to remove them. --BDD (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

not sure how many in total you have closed in favour of the proposal, just scanning the list now, but thank you; it's time the campaign to oppose all these without valid reason is brought to an end; there are countless more in other US states and other countries that need correction; because of the harassment of me in various arenas I haven't had the time/inclination to launch RMs on them all; they were nearly all undiscussed moves by the usual suspect(s).Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't move Haida people; they are far and away the clear primarytopic, and the opposing claims that there are other primarytopics are not borne out by the evidence; or did I not do view stats there? What other primary topic competitor could there be for the term "Haida"? Haida Gwaii? HMCS Haida? Haida manga? Stats for the language do not support the notion that it, as in too many other parallel cases to count, is anywhere near close to people looking for the article about the group; who are easily also the most famous of BC's native peoples world-wide. Their language is an obscure topic by comparison; their art very much more widely known.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re that, this is a relevant passage from WP:DAB:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Please reconsider your closure; I see no way that the other supposed primarytopics are anywhere near as of "long-term significance" as the people whose titles all the rest of the items on the dab page are derived from.Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

After two years of being in Wikipedia, I think it is taking its toll on me. Why is it that every time someone reverts me, I have to go hunt for sources (per WP:BRD) but also every time I revert someone's blatantly unreferenced edit (or containing bogus source), again it is my change that is reverted and it is I who end up hunting for source while they freely call me a vandal? Are WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL and WP:EW only for me and other people the king of Wikipedia?

I demand equal treatment.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful I can be without some examples. Did I do this to you? --BDD (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. No, not you; otherwise my wording would have been different. But, yes, I can give you example. (I must have known you might not remember.) Still, how does this non-involved admin and clean canvassing policy works here? Can I just give you a diff or must I somehow obfuscate the involved parties?

Still, in the interest of not making this message totally useless, I give you a person-safe account. Let's assume: Someone adds something to article X. I revert it, saying verification failed and quoting the source text in the edit summary. He counter-reverts with "No, the source is good, I am sure." I send him a message in his talk page and quote the source line by line, especially one line that says it is such and such. Then, silly me, thinking that reverting is undisputed this time, revert. But he counter-reverts, this time saying "rvv. cf. Talk:X#Section Y". I go to the discussion page, and post screenshots that confirm my previous suspicion. Let's say I waited for a day or two and then reverted. Do you think he'd give up, or do you think he'd revert this time without an edit summary too?

Basically, what a human must do if this comes to pass?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You can send me an email if you want to name some names that you wouldn't feel comfortable writing here. Again, it's very hard for me to say what you should do without knowing some of the specifics. I suppose you could tell this person about BRD, that it means that a bold addition which is reverted shouldn't be re-added until it's supported by discussion. If you're acting in good faith and not violating 3RR, you certainly shouldn't be called a vandal for this. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Email would do. But what prevents you from replying to the "person-safe" account here? After all, if a similar situation happen in the future your context-adaptive reply for the past situation applies only to the past. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for taking the time to review and deal with all the requested moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for closing/moving the Nisga'a RM.....but the move request was not to Nisga’a, which has a special apostrophe, but to Nisga'a, with an ordinary apostrophe as it was originally. Currently the latter is a redirect to Nisga'a people, which redirects to the special apostrophe title Nisga’a. That is the only special apostrophe out of all such endonyms and has no authentic orthographic of phonlogical purpose; it was created to get around existing redirects by the editor who changed the title to Nisga’a people in doing so. Please amend your move to the ordinary apostrophe version as per the terms of the Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello BDD. It looks to me that the simple apostrophe is better. Two moves were requested by Skookum1 at WP:RMTR, but I declined temporarily, since you closed the recent move. I am thinking of going ahead with the move, but would like to know if you object. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't answered me despite the inquiry above, but I see no reason for any objection; this is a typographical correct and also re CONSISTENCY with other articles in the same category and also with the use of apostrophes in other native-name/language articles for BC native topics. The RM was to move it to the ordinary-apostrophe version until that was moved by JorisV (both articles) to the special-apostrophe version, without explanation, on Aug 24 2010, after four and a half years from the original title's creation in on Jan 19 2006. According to what I see, at least on CFDS if not directly on WP:RM, typographical corrections are non-controversial. I can't speak for him but what I believe happened was a mistaken simple removal of "people" without addressing the requested move's target directly; even though it was explained in the RM. I'm surprised that this was treated as potentially controversial, quite frankly.....and didn't realize that closers "OWNed" titles they had moved such that this consultation would even be necessary. JorisV's move was not discussed and there are no sources to back it up, as often the case with such moves.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can go ahead and take care of that since I haven't been able to. I was used to RMs that just involved removing the "people," so I didn't notice the punctuation difference (in some fonts, there barely is one). --BDD (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The curly apostrophe has now been replaced with the standard one as requested at WP:RMTR in the titles of Nisga'a and Nisga'a language. EdJohnston (talk)

Hi Im Zackdichens12 and i do apologise for the move but it is not just the 2010 Daybreak tv series because 2011,2012,2013 and 2014 are more series s ok do understand ok so please un-move protect this page as soon as possible please. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is in line with our naming conventions; see WP:NCTV. 2010 simply indicates the first year of the series. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

All right fine then but please un-move protect this page as soon as possible ok please I beg you. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not. The page should not be moved again unless there's consensus to do so. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I promise i will not let anyone move the page I promise really. →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want it un-move protected, then? That doesn't mean the page can't move at all, only that it can't be moved except by administrators. So it could still be moved based on consensus at an RM, for example. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Given your track record I really wish you had seen fit to close Talk:Haida#Requested_move instead of BHG. Ample evidence was provided, and the point that PRIMARYTOPIC does not allow for two-word items such as Haida Gwaii to be considered for PT, but all this was ignored by BHG, who IMO is hostile to me as evinced by her aggressive/condemnatory comments on me at the ANI/site ban proposal currently on the boil, and also her deletion of my comments on her wrong close of one of the Squamish titles was "deleting someone else's posts". Sanpoil tribe and Spokane people (formerly titled "Spokan" per self-identification) she closed similarly, along with BC town RMs like Bella Bella and Fort Fraser where, again ample evidence was presented vs specious/vague "oppose" votes. These closes were out of order and contrary to guidelines....and contrary to evidence presented. Move Review is obviously not the place where a guy like me can expect fair treatment. Other BC RMs were similarly closed without respect to evidence presented, and where "oppose" votes that were groundless and unsubstantiated were counted quantitatively instead of being dismissed on qualitative grounds. IMO her actions closing these were AGF and COI and very, very, very contrary to guidelines and COMMONSENSE.Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Innu people and Nisqually people are still open, since the 20th of March; I hope you close them before somebody sharpening axes does......there are two support votes and no opposes at the Innu item, but IMO that won't stop a closer from saying "no consensus". Per Nisqually and others like it, the "old consensus" re such names was that the people whose name was where the names of all other items were derived from is the PRIMARYTOPIC. There are cases like Chehalis, Multnomah that I didn't bother to file, and Entiat and Walla Walla which I withdrew; but claims that rivers named for the "FOO" people are PRIMARYTOPIC are not borne out by what PRIMARYTOPIC actually says. but I'm getting used to guidelines being ignored while specious "oppose" votes are filed/copy-pasted by the same small crew of editors.Skookum1 (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

None of those closes were invalid on their face, even if I might have disagreed with the outcome. "PRIMARYTOPIC does not allow for two-word items" is a misreading of policy; it depends on the specific case, i.e., if "Foo Bar" is commonly known simply as "Foo." I don't know whether that's the case with Haida Gwaii or not.

Please see my comments on your ANI case. Stop commenting on other editors, try to be more concise, and otherwise don't give fodder to your critics. As for the outstanding RMs, I'll get to them if I get to them. That's just the way it goes. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Crap, sorry, I totally missed your message. I wasn't meaning to ignore you. If the consensus is clear, I'm not going to object on procedural grounds. (Though I disagree about documentation - certainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at least as strong a case against the delete position as FORRED is for it). For the moment I realise I just have to hold the fort until other editors stumble across the problem and think it over themselves. WilyD 09:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me—I was starting to think I had offended you. Well, perhaps a helpful non-admin such as Red Slash or Steel1943 could step in to make a close and use {{db-xfd}} as appropriate. If they're still open with clear consensus in a few days, I may do it myself. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are y'all talking about, say, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_4#Inglaterra? I disagree with the reasoning behind the deleters because redirects are cheap, but I think that's a reasonable close. I'm not super-keen on RfD, to be honest. I wonder (this is totally not the place to say it) if RfD could be done away with. If a redirect is awful (superevil person redirecting to Obama) it should be speedied. If it's unclear, a dab page should be boldly written in its place (anyone can do this). If it's neither, we should keep it because redirects are cheap. Anyway, as long as it doesn't come as a vendetta against a specific user, it seems very much within the discretion of an admin or anyone to make decisions that any (even vaguely) reasonable editor would do if they bothered. Just my fifteen or so cents. Red Slash 02:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• So... Where are these discussions, and have they been closed yet? (I figured that asking about them would be a bit more efficient than trying to track them down.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash: Certainly some such redirects could be speedied, e.g., with G10 and the like. And converting to redirects to articles is encouraged in RfD documentation, so there's that. There are certainly editors that take what might be called a broad inclusionist approach to redirects, and you could join them in discussions if you were so inclined. Some redirects do need discussion, though, and if RfD were closed, I suppose they'd just move to MfD (which usually has moribund participation levels). --BDD (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Steel1943: They're sort of scattered throughout the RfD backlog right now, such as March 31 and March 26-28. If you're at the RfD table of contents, basically just look for Cyrillic characters. Some are closed, but many more are not because I've voted on them. (I believe Red Slash has previously chastised me for such behavior at RM.) When backlogs are bad, I don't mind an involved close when there's unanimity, but as long as there's some level of disagreement, I'd rather hold off. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, about this: a few months ago, I would have closed RfD discussions in this manner. However, I closed a discussion in this suggested manner back in December 2013, but then another administrator reverted me. Essentially, the administrator referred me to WP:BADNAC and WP:NACD for the reason why they reverted my close (since I cannot "technically perform the result of the outcome"). Sorry BDD; unless these policies can get changed, I have to refuse this request. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Chastised?? Oh I hope you're kidding! No, the only thing I've said is that I (as a joke) wish you didn't participate in the discussions so that SOMEONE would be able to step in and close the ones that have been backlogged since forever. But I think that--especially if everyone involved is a regular at WP and understands what's happening--there's no problem with closing obvious, obvious discussions that you're involved in. Red Slash 18:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know that was meant in jest. So was my comment. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I'm not referring to closing discussions in which I am WP:INVOLVED; at this point, with the excruciating WP:RFD backlog, I would close them even if I WAS involved. What I am referring to is the policy stated in WP:NACD about how non-admins cannot close discussions in a manner which they cannot execute (ex. deletion). I attempted the method that BDD suggested once (closing the discussion to "delete", then tagging the redirect with a {{Db-xfd}} tag), and someone who participated in that discussion (who is also an administrator) called me out on it, reverted my close, and essentially told me that if I wanted to close discussions in that manner, I should start a discussion on WP:NACD to get the policy changed. But, instead, I decided to take a WikiBreak; it's a bit ridiculous that policy would be enforced like that when there's a horrendous backlog of open discussions, but since it was enforced once, I have no desire to do it again. However, if you or BDD or anyone else is willing to work with me to start a discussion to get WP:NACD (and, subsequently, WP:BADNAC) changed to allow non-admins to close a discussion to "delete" (and tag the article to be deleted with a {{Db-xfd}} tag in the event of a horrendous backlog of open discussions (possibly just for WP:RFD, but maybe for the other discussion forums as well), I'm willing to participate in the discussion and/or help write the proposal. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, if I wasn't clear, I'm not jesting/joking; this actually happened. Seriously, if uninvolved administrators are not willing to close discussions, especially when there is a backlog, the responsibility should not HAVE to fall on the hands on an involved administrator; I think there should be some sort of "All hands on deck" option for situations like the one currently happening of WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, Steel. If we're to take things like IAR/NOTBURO seriously, I think we have to allow such closes. Now, if there isn't a backlog problem, if a non-admin is rushing in and closing discussions that an admin would've gotten to in an hour or two, that's not necessary, and we could tell that person to pull back a bit. But that's clearly not what's happening here. I don't know if Armbrust can shed any light on this issue. I know he's done such closes with {{db-xfd}}, and I'm grateful for it. If we're not going to allow non-admins to make such closes, that's not a very useful tag. (Sure, sometimes an admin will close a discussion as delete and forget to follow through, but I don't think it's especially a common occurrence.) Who reverted you on the closes, Steel? I'd like to talk to them, and possibly get involved in loosening the restrictions on NACs. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since it sounds like there are confessions being made here, I actually performed more "delete and tag {{Db-xfd}}" closes than I was referring to in December 2013, most of which I performed in the few months before that during times of backlogs on WP:RFD, so I am familiar with how Armbrust performed closes (since I closed some discussions in that manner as well). However, the reverted close in December 2013 is referenced on the last two sections of my most recently created talk page archives (I'm directing you there to identify the administrator/editor rather than posting their name due to the fact that Wikipedia now notifies editors when their user page or talk page is linked, and I'm not the one who wants to get involved in such a discussion ... yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the link. For future reference, you can use {{noping}} to link to someone without notifying them. Let's test it: Steel1943. Can you hear me now? --BDD (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, can't hear you. Works like a charm! Thanks for the info about that template's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Red Slash and WilyD, policy on deletion is quite clear, and very sound. RfD is almost redundant. We should only be deleting harmful or really new redirects. (Certainly there may be a case to discourage particular creations that we wouldn't delete, but that is another matter.)

1. Redirects are cheap for the servers - deleting them increases their cost, and having an RfD increases their cost by orders of magnitude.
2. Often there is history.
3. We deprive the user community of a way to access information
   • Through mechanisms that match page names
     • Go to
     • Creating links
       • In an article or discussion
       • Speculatively, in a wanted articles list
     • Search engines
     • External engines such as Wikidata
4. Deleting breaks links
   • From other pages on en:wp
   • From other pages on other WMF projects
   • From pages in history
   • From pages on the interwebs
     • From mirrors
   • From off-web resources
     • Published urls
     • Browser bookmarks
     • Databases of links
5. It is a waste of human effort to discuss and delete.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

• Time's up, let's do this! --BDD (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• For transparency's sake, the affected discussions were eight from the 26th and one from the 31st. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Saw your removal of it on Mount Lolo. That's a major landform in British Columbia, and is a proper noun; it is one of the major landforms in British Columbia, and is in the same hierarchies as such things as Canadian Shield and Coast Mountains and Rocky Mountain Trench and more; it's also a parent category for items located within it, like Clear Range, Chilcotin Plateau and lots more. Whose bright idea was this? I went to the redlink, it said nothing about a CfD discussion anywhere. Who deleted it and why? Guess I'll post this on TALKCFD....Skookum1 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it never existed. There are no deleted edits; normally as an admin, I could see previous versions and the like. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten I'd filed one on March 20, and last night (? day before?) started a fresh one at Talk:Duwamish#Requested move; how can they be merged, or do I withdraw the new one and copy t he view stats on it over to the old one?Skookum1 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll close the newer one and leave a note at the older one. If you want to copy over any of your comments, feel free. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not arguing with your closure but just a silly process thought. I noticed that you moved Stawamus (Skwxwu7mesh village) to Stawamus (village). However, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Places and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific topics I think you should have moved it to Stawamus, British Columbia. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. I wouldn't object to such a move. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Moricetown (which doesn't have a dab because the name is unique), Bella Bella, British Columbia (which shouldn't have a dab if the RM had been properly closed), Chopaka, British Columbia, and various others are entirely-native communities on IRs, so the BC dab would work; the article has on it the different pronunciation vs the usual way to say Stawamus re the mountain and river/lake, so I can live with Stawamus BC, though I still think "consistency" with other articles in the same category should have been why the reversion to Sta7mes was mandated; also re "reversion to the original title in the event of a protracted dispute" somewhere in TITLE; the main objections, which I find spurious and problematic, were to the use of the /7/. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yeah but so what? Exceptionalism was applied here re that /7/ IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a pretty regular presence at RfD these days. Unless you haven't seen me there in a week or so, it's probably not necessary to inform me of ongoing discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[1] -- did you really mean trout to the closer? NE Ent 21:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The closer said "I'm closing this RFC now as to keep it from interfering with the new (15 April 2014) move request." That request, to move the page to Dosage forms of Cannabis has essentially no chance of succeeding, so closing a robust discussion as a purported distraction from that strange request seems highly problematic to me. I'm not saying the close as a whole was wrong. An MRV is an opportunity for (hopefully) constructive criticism, so I wanted to give that feedback. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey BDD, since you had an understanding of where the phrase "No Way! I Can't Believe This!" came from, you may have an interest in an edit I did. Finding targets that mention phrases in the article itself seems to be difficult sometimes, but oddly enough, that one existed! Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! You may have seen elsewhere that I'm a fan of {{R from phrase}} and {{R from quotation}} redirects. I think they're one example of a redirect that can be useful even if it's not mentioned on its target page. A reader may be wondering where a phrase is from, and redirecting alone can answer that. If it's too obscure, like that Robotnik quote, it could be a source of confusion, and in that case it's fine to delete. Fortunately, we now have Time's up, let's do this to accompany At least I have chicken (both mentioned). --BDD (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article List of cathedrals in Israel and the Palestinian territories is proposed to be split into List of cathedrals in Israel and List of cathedrals in Palestine. Please join the discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled onto a new/proposed page you helped edit. [[3]]. I just added some info to the page. A brand new academic center. But, it is being founded with a $26 million gift, major academics participating, and has a well-known architectural firm renovatiing a large, gothic revival building purchased for its use at the edge of the campus of the University of Chicago. All of this has received coverage in the press, the article has lots of valid links. I am puzzled to understand why the article was not acceptable.A.Jacobin (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Russians in Estonia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that. Could I ask you to salt it as well to prevent the redirect being put back? I firmly believe an attempt will be made to do so. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You can request at WP:RPP. I generally only start thinking about salting if something has been deleted three times, but I wouldn't object to another admin doing so here. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I'd rather not have to start an RM discussion for every article bobrayner moved, so maybe you could help me out with where to go. Is there any policy or something that will state whether these moves should be upheld or not? Or should I start one big discussion someplace? I noticed you didn't move Maja e zeze back since he was reverting a sock's move but, although I still think it became the longstanding name, I don't want to send it to another MRV. I think it'd be best if they were just all dealt with as a group instead of in a case by case basis. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know. Bobrayner and anyone else really shouldn't move Kosovo-related articles unilaterally. Controversy is almost always guaranteed, so we should forgo BOLD in favor of RM, where consensus can be built, and if there's no consensus, the outcome is clear. It would be good if we could deal with these as a group, though I do think reverting a sock is a slightly different matter, so it might be best to separate those cases into a second group. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll figure something out when I get a chance. Regards. --Local hero ^talk 21:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have removed Category:Monotypic mammal genera from several articles describing some mammal species that is monotypic within its genus. Since in such cases we typically don't have a separate article for the genus, the article equally describes the genus. Unless the species has a common name it is a somewhat irrelevant, arbitrary and easily changeable editorial choice whether the article name refers to the genus or the species, something that does not affect the content of the article and should therefore be largely immaterial for the categorization. Accordingly, I'm not convinced that the removal of Category:Monotypic mammal genera in such cases is wise.  --Lambiam 23:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lambiam. It makes a certain amount of sense to categorize articles over redirects, but there are certain circumstances where the latter is where the categories belong. See, for example, WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which speaks to these cases in particular. It simply isn't correct to describe Numbat as a genus, monotypic or otherwise. I think in dedicated taxon categories, it behooves us to be accurate. Now, for categories like Category:Dasyuromorphs, it makes sense to include the common-named articles, and the genera can stay or go. To some extent, this is a constraint of our naming conventions, since fauna are usually titled by a common name (I'm not saying I oppose this practice). Since WP:FAUNA says to classify monotypic genera at the genus title, there are some straightforward cases, such as Epixerus.

This practice also avoids maintenance when the discovery of new species renders previously monotypic genera not so. (In addition to transferring these categories to genera, I came across a few cases where the genus simply wasn't monotypic.) To use a previous example, Numbat will probably always be synonymous with Myrmecobius fasciatus, but it might not always be so with Myrmecobius. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, BDD. I have nominated Carlos G. Vallés at DYK and it currently awaits review. Can you help me by quick copyediting the short article? And I have a Question that I have used official website of a person in the article as a source. Is it ok? as it is a primary source?

Thanks. Please reply me on my talkpage. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for quick help. Yes, I was confused about using his self published website but its quite tough to find English sources for a person who mostly covered in Gujarati media. Though i cited his interview, some points in article are just mentioned in his website. I actually cant find anything about his Latin American experience as there is no info more than that. He lectured, toured or probably stayed there but no info on that. He is well known Gujarati writer who left india in 1999 and have little coverage in current media. I will currently keep selfpub citation as hook may contested at DYK. Regards and thanks again, :) -Nizil (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a go but I did say it would only be a stub. I am not familiar with it particularly, but am quite familiar with typography and so on generally. I'll see what I can do, at least to get it started. Si Trew (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A stub is better than a redirect. You don't have to do this, of course, but thanks nonetheless. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As it happens I found on Google not long ago (press release today) http://bankingtechnology dot banking-business-review dot com/news/us-and-european-banks-combat-software-security-threat-with-sonatype-solution-230414-4218846 here this article] so I think it might be a puff that is not notable. Therefore I haven't created it. Please replace "dot" with fullstop/period since the spam filter blocked me from putting in the URL directly. Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me like this is spam, it is just a press release. There's no way you can make an article out of this. Your talk page is not the place for me to say so, but obviously since the page has been deleted there is no way to put it anywhere else so with your kind consent I put it here for the record. When that company becomes notable, they can have an article. Also, sonatype.org and sonatype.com seem two very distinct things and I was originally intending at least to create the DAB, even with redlinks, but since the dot com seems just puffery there is little point doing so. Sonatype.org is connected as their "Open-source contribution to the community". There is no RS or anything else on this. Best leave it red. I did my homework though. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It appears you have moved an entire page Paucidentomys vermidax to Paucidentomys without giving any statement of this intention or justification on the Talk page. Please could you explain your actions on the Talk page. This will help editors like myself understand why such moves are made and avoid creating the problems in the first place.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy. While some page moves are discussed on talk pages, others, especially uncontroversial ones, may only have justifications given in the move itself. The page history shows that I moved per WP:FAUNA, the fauna naming conventions. You'll see there under the Monotypic taxa section that for articles on monotypic genera, we should use the genus name for the article title. Since this was a straightforward matter of conformance with naming conventions, I didn't see the need to start a discussion about it. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I now understand the move. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed move of Independent (politician) has been altered to the new title of Political independent, which might be more addressing of your concerns. This notice is in case you would like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you for your interest in the freedom of speech legal case, Beck v. Eiland-Hall.

The footnotes were an outgrowth of discussion from the GA Review.

I'd rather not depend on the quality of other Wikipedia articles to explain things, as they may be poorer in quality than this WP:GA.

Please see discussion, at Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall.

Thanks again for your interest in this First Amendment legal case,

— Cirt (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I looked at the GA review and thought that was a bit silly, but I don't object to the revert. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! BDD, There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}. Join in discussion at project talkpage. Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject. Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates 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) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(I mean this one.) I created the redirect, and probably not many people use it. I like it, but T:WPMHA would work just as well for me, and I don't mind moving it ... is it your sense of the discussion that people would be happier with that? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Some editors just don't like the T: pseudo-namespace. It's up to you, but if it were me, I'd forget it unless it comes up again. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, since everyone's okay with that AFAICT. I added a note after the close at the discussion page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia/Archive_index as why "Military Administration in France" is troublesome (not recognisable, not precise).

I'm all for removing parenthetical disambiguators, but "German military administration in France" could refer to occupations in 1871-73, 1914-1918, or 1940-44.

And on its own without context, it refers to the organisation taking care of administrative affairs of the French military.

"Zone occupée" is not an alternative, as it is its own article.

I'm not fond at all of the title before you changed it, but I'm not really seeing anything better.

Except "Nazi German Military Administration in France", at least it gets rid of us of those ugly parenthesis and that's a marginal improvement.

No wait, I remember that's because it's a direct translation of "Militärverwaltung in Frankreich", and since the German name wasn't "Nationalsozialistischen deutschen Militärverwaltung in Frankreich" that doesn't go. Simply leaving it at Militärverwaltung in Frankreich is judged to be not English enough.

So, what are we left with? ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all attached to the current title; Foo (bar) simply shouldn't redirect to Foo; it's unnecessary disambiguation. If you want to propose an alternative, I (probably) won't object. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello BDD, I am a bit mystified to see that you created this category. If it ended up being applied throughout the class Gastropoda, there would end up being many thousands of entries in it. Project Gastropods already has 28,000 articles, of those, probably already several thousand are genus articles. Perhaps you did not realize how huge the class Gastropoda is -- it is second only to Class Insecta in terms of how many taxa it includes. Do you really think this category is a good idea? I am dubious, but I am prepared to listed to arguments in its favor. Invertzoo (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo. No, I didn't realize Gastropoda was quite so large, but that doesn't really change anything for me. For one thing, it has a parent category, Category:Mollusc genera (which, yes, I also made), so even if we were to delete the gastropod one, that would just make the mollusc one less easily navigable. And the mollusc category is a child of Category:Animal genera, which I did not make. I think our taxonomic categories are underdeveloped and underpopulated, so it's sort of a long-term project I'm working on. If you think it would bring harm somehow, please let me know and I'll try to address your concerns. If you just think it's a fool's errand, that it would take too long, well—I'll just ask that you let me tilt at these windmills just the same. (And for what it's worth, there is a Category:Insect genera, which is also new but not my creation.) --BDD (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice job with Gambling in China. I don't think there is much I could do to make it better. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed Murray Buchan at Template:Did you know nominations/Murray Buchan nominated by Matty.007. It has copyediting issues and I suggested him independent copyediting as article is just above 1500 words. Can you help him? Regards, -Nizil (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply but thanks a lot for copyediting. :) -Nizil (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you relisted Template:Wpcw, and there were zero comments on the relist, how can the disposition be Delete? --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually when I relist things it means I don't think there's consensus; after all, if I did think there was consensus, I'd just close it. But lately with the backlog at RFD, I've been relisting in other cases, such as when there's a weak consensus or when I've participated in the discussion (relisting when you're a participant isn't necessarily prohibited, but I prefer to avoid it when practical). Rarely does a second relist really make a difference, so I almost never do that. In cases like that, I figure this is all the discussion I'm going to get, and just make a decision accordingly. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

BDD,

I don't have admin rights and don't want them – I wouldn't abuse them as such but I would make too many mistakes (you can see that from the number I make at WP:RfD as a normal user!). However, is there some way you could grant the right to me to close discussions, I would go very careful but after the "seven days or so" has expired and there's obvious consent, I could close them down? I'd have to take things to CSD etc for the actual deletion if that was the consensus, of course, but I mean just WP:WIKIGNOMEing to try to lighten the load on you a bit? Is there a way to do that?

Of course technically I can just whack in the templates that you do, but that won't last a minute. I am not trying to gain power – in fact I am trying to lose power, in a sense, because I would have to be a bit more circumspect rather than the general ramble I usuallt give – and I don't want to be admin but if I can help you with a bit of gnoming in any way?

Sincere regards Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled if you could help out like that. Non-admin closures are permitted, and they can be a real godsend in cases like RfD with its backlog right now. Just check the points at WP:NACD and close away. It's good form to include {{nac}} along with a closing statement in the interests of disclosure. Pinging Steel1943 in case he has any advice. He's done this sort of thing before. (I did too, before I was an admin, though it happened more at WP:RM.) --BDD (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, I was just about to jump in with a {{Talk page stalker}} message, but BDD bet me to responding. Si Trew, in the past, I had done quite a few non-admin closures in the past, and can give you some advice about closing discussions on WP:RFD. The instructions at WP:RFD/AI provide some information about how to perform closes at RFD. However, keep in mind that you really should not close a discussion which you are involved (which for you, Si, unfortunately, leaves you with almost no discussions which you can close since you participate in most of them), and you "may" get some pushback for trying to close a discussion to "delete", given that at least two essays state that non-admins are not to close discussions in a way where the editor cannot perform the action. I actually learned the "way" to close discussions to "delete" back by following BDD's example when he was a non-administrator (BDD has stated this elsewhere, so it's not really news, and this is how I learned); after closing a discussion to "delete" for an RFD, tag the redirect with a {{Db-xfd}} tag ... then, it should, in theory, eventually get deleted by an administrator.

With this being said, when I decide to perform NAC closes anymore (which hasn't been recently, unfortunately), I try to do this one major following point:

1. Avoiding participating in discussions that are obviously going to have a result other than "delete". ("keep", "retarget", "no consensus", "dabify", etc.)

I mean, hey, if it's obviously going to be deleted, put in your deletion opinion in the discussion. But Si, I will say this: with your input, you may be better off just participating in RFD as you have been. In some of the discussions, I've seen some "retarget" votes from you that include a target that no one else would have thought about unless you brought it up ... targets that everyone then seems to accept a after it is mentioned. Anyways, there's my two cents: hope that helps! Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right. I will stay as a wikignome and continue to give my perverse opinions. I just wanted to lighten the load a bit, but in no way was I asking for admin etc: I was offered some times in the past and refused it, prefer to gnome. I don't actually participate in every discussion, there are a few that are so banal that I leave it to those lessmore capable. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD,

I apologize for having taken so long to respond to your message. I have been experiencing significant internet connectivity problems over the past week or so, I am just getting back from vacation, and life has just generally been more hectic than normal recently. I am normally much quicker in my replies. Thank you for notifying me of the various prods and rfds you have been initiating; I would be grateful if you would continue to notify me of any new such discussions. Have you started any more beyond what you have mentioned on my talk page? I will attempt to visit and weigh in on each soon. Thank you for your diligence in this matter.

Neelix (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I had started to compile items in my sandbox so I could wait to hear from you before proceeding. Still, I think I might as well proceed with them as a batch, so hopefully I won't be lighting up your talk page too badly in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you retarget this redirect before the hundreds of incoming links were repaired? I'd even expanded the hatnote at Conan (talk show) to point to the disambiguation page in the interim. —David Levy 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi David. As you may know, the main flaw in the What Links Here function is that links from templates, especially navboxes, continue to show as incoming even after the templates have been updated, sometimes even days later. So I updated the templates, and from there the only way to tell if there were still incoming links would be to check every one. Better, I thought, to wait a few days, and in the meantime editors who clean up links to dabs might catch the remainders. That appears to have happened here. This is the big problem with WP:FIXDABLINKS, which is a good sentiment, but strictly applied to RM it would be a huge impediment to that already slow process. When I make unilateral changes, I generally will go through all the links. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BD2412 repaired almost all of the incoming links in the article namespace (410 of them, to be specific) the following day. To my recollection, these links accounted for a vast majority of those reported via the WhatLinksHere function.

I'm aware of the template bug, but I don't understand why it necessitated that the redirect be retargeted to the disambiguation page immediately. Why not update the templates, "wait a few days", repair the incoming links in the article namespace, and then retarget the redirect?

If you disagree with the guideline (or its application in the context of the RM process), you might want to participate the ongoing discussion about it (to which I linked when undoing the same retargeting less than a day before you reinstated it). —David Levy 17:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this edit, I was just about to revert it, and wanted to let you know why, and maybe get your opinion or feedback on the matter. I usually, before reverting somebody's edit, check their user page or history to see how much I would need to explain(ie, some IPs I might just plain revert with no explanation, new users genuinely trying to help I may explain on their userpage, and others I would just explain in the edit summary.) Seeing you are an administrator, I came to talk to you personally about it, so I might could prevent this from happening in the future.

Generally what I would say about this particular edit is:

• 1. It is a "minor Internet meme". Memes in general aren't that notable, specifically not minor ones. I don't see why this is worth mentioning.
• 2. As a source, you used "knowyourmeme", which would be great as a primary source, but also uses user-generated content to an extent(I think?), and isn't too reliable.
• 3. This means that, to demonstrate notability of this meme to include it in this section about Pidgey, you would need to use a reliable third party source giving it some form of coverage that demonstrates notability.

I also know that not all administrators are alike, and you may not venture into this kind of stuff often. I assume that there was some form of "edit request" page where a user requested that you make this edit, and it wasn't entirely your idea, so you would rather just make the edit then explain to the user why it was a bad idea. But now that I have explained it to you, I hope you either explain to me why you think otherwise, or I taught you something here, and you will not continue to make edits like this. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blake, and thanks for getting in touch. I added that content when I came across the redirect Shiny Pidgey. I figured that since it wasn't discussed at Gameplay of Pokémon#Shiny Pokémon or List of Pokémon (1–51)#Pidgey, it should be deleted. Then I thought of what a slow process RfD had become lately, and figured it would be easier to just briefly address the topic. But as a Pokémon project editor, you may be in a better position to judge here. Either the meme should be address or the redirect shouldn't exist, though—the status quo was not benefiting anyone.

As for Know Your Meme, it's true that some of its content is user-generated, but it's probably the best curated source out there for information on memes. I'd take its background information with a grain of salt, but if the statement you're supporting is that "X is a meme" and it has a page on KYM, I think that's a pretty safe bet. Finally, while I would certainly agree that "Shiny Pidgey" doesn't meet GNG or anything, it doesn't need to be notable on its own in order to be simply mentioned in another article (WP:NNC). So my addition is plenty well within guidelines, I think, but again, I wouldn't object to dispensing with it iff we delete the redirect as well. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I know, there is only one journal titled Psyche, so I'm at a loss understanding why you moved Psyche (journal) to Psyche (consciousness journal) and redirected the former to Psyche, which is a disambiguation page. This seems needlessly complicated to me. You linked to a policy, but I don't really see how this would direct us to do things this way either. Can you enlighten me? --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just look on the dab: it's Psyche (entomological journal). It appears to be more prominent, is not defunct, and several incoming links were intended for it anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sjeez, didn't look past the first journal... I'm not at a loss any more, thanks and sorry for the unnecessary inquiry! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please delete this redirect (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7, LED IPS. It is unsuitable and creates additional confusion. Thanks.

BBCLCD (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Care to expand on the close rationale? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty self-evident that editors are closely divided on the question, and have been whenever it's been raised. For better or worse, inertia will probably keep the move from happening, at least any time soon. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, but did you read the previous closing rationale? The closer went to lengths to analyze the policy arguments, many of which were repeated this time, but some of which were new. Would you mind posting your analysis of the policy arguments? Particularly how you weighed the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:OFFICIALNAME, and any other policies/arguments you considered? I (and I'm sure others) would greatly appreciate it - thanks. Editors may be closely divided, but is policy? Dohn joe (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion was essentially a rehash of the one that happened just over a month ago. Except for a few remarks on specific comments, Drmies's explanation of that close still applies. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to not let this go, but I would disagree. I think the !supporters largely augmented their previous reliance on WP:COMMONNAME with more evidence of usage in sources, as requested by Drmies ("next time, if there is a next time, we can leave much of this chatter (sorry) by the wayside and present the sources--many sources, strong sources, preferably a couple which discuss the naming issue explicitly"). Did you not find that evidence presented - especially here and here? As for the !opposers, it seems they largely relied on WP:OFFICIALNAME. Several editors (myself included) tried to show that those arguments were based on a misreading of that essay. Would you concur? If so, what is left of the !oppose arguments that would lead to a no-consensus result? Dohn joe (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll reopen it and leave the decision for someone else. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope I wasn't too strident about it - I do appreciate your work. Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's an uncontroversial request to simply de-capitalise Athens railway station, per railway station MoS, and then protect the capitalised redirect from sockpuppet edits by Pumpie. If you are new to this user, the user got indef-blocked for bad quality edits despite numerous RfC. However, I am a bit late to the sockpuppet issue. --Marianian^(talk) 02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The users disputing the name Ambalal Muljibhai Patel turned out to be sockpuppets. [4] Which forum should I go to gain consensus for the move? Will RFC work here? --Rahul (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a procedural close on an RfD raised today that was obviously a slip by two good-faith editors who have been working together on an article. I even got it right the first time! Woo hoo! I don't want to be admin: this one was obvious as the two collaborators (I mean it in the nicest way) the second had added {{tick|yes}} on the RfD. so it was obviously in agreement.

So by sparing you two seconds I have now wasted your time... that's useful... I noted the comments above by @Steel1943: etc: sound advice. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think this edit of yours today is a good idea. It takes away from readers the chance to discover a detail article that they may care about. For example, if a reader is perusing Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war, they used to see both John McCain and Early life and military career of John McCain, and that gave them a direct chance to view the biographical subarticle that would have much more information on McCain's time as a POW. Now, to find that by the category system, they would have to go to John McCain, go all the way to the bottom, look at Category:John McCain, then find Early life and military career of John McCain among all of those entries. That's much less likely to happen. Same goes for readers perusing Category:Shot-down aviators, Category:American torture victims, and so on. So how is this change that you did beneficial for the reader? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:INCOMPATIBLE. "Early life and military career of John McCain" isn't a shot-down aviator or Jeopardy! contestant. As a spin-off article, readers are always going to come to that article mostly though the main McCain one, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems too literal an interpretation of WP:INCOMPATIBLE. The subject of "Early life and military career of John McCain" is clearly a shot-down aviator and a Jeopardy contestant, even if the title itself is not. (And the Jeopardy fact isn't even included in the main article, only in the detail article, which means that readers won't be able to find that at all via the category system. And periodically someone deletes the category from the main article because it isn't sourced there.) No offense intended, but I think this is one of those cases where WP editors get wrapped up in internal, legalistic interpretations of all the WP:XYZ rules and forget about what actually benefits readers. I will admit to being self-interested here, because I spent huge amounts of time researching, writing, and getting to FA the "Early life and military career of John McCain" article. I want people to know it's available and read it, because I often see comments on the main article talk page that that article doesn't address something or other, when those things are in the detail article. Look at the stats for any biographical subarticle and you'll see the readership numbers are usually 100:1 worse than for the main article, which means readers just aren't seeing it. I figure the category system is another way to make those articles visible. Including this article in those categories that you removed does no harm to anything and has the potential to do good. I'd ask you as an admin to reconsider your position on this. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• If BDD is pointing to article wiki links to down weight the problem of more difficult category navigation, this is a poor argument. The different navigation methods (interwikilinks, search function, category system, navigation templates) are complementary, independent of each other, and different readers will try different methods. One method working well is not a reason to not worry about another method. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Dada Bhagwan. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rahul (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll make the stub. What do you want me to do? Si Trew logged in as IP 84.236.37.246 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You can just work off of what little I have at User:BDD/Infotag, and I'll move it to mainspace once you're ready. In the process, let me know whether you think Infotag or Infotag News Agency would be the better title. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the See also links at American Civil War. I spent a fair amount of time categorizing and expanding the section, and on second look, I guess uniform articles should be allocated out of general references into the respective Union and Confederate sections.

On the "make-do" associated with “Mexico in the American Civil War” link, which you characterized as misleading, it was what I could find on the subject after a search, so in the WP spirit of connecting articles which are connected, I added the link to the appropriate ‘Benito Juarez' section.

If the base information in the Benito Juarez article relative to Mexican-US-French relations were to be expanded with the jailing of the Confederate emissaries and assistance with the Union blockade, it might qualify for a stand-alone article “Mexico in the American Civil War”, especially if it were to include something on the Lincoln-Juarez correspondence. But this contribution was made before I had any experience initiating an article.

I guess I just wanted to reassure you I acted in good faith, I regret the lack of fuller information on the subject at Wikipedia, and will try to get to the leg work required for a more complete Mexico in the American Civil War at some point in the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. I just saw the name of the link, expected a full article, and was a bit disappointed. There was a similar issue on the {{Foreign WNA}} template, where Belize linked to Toledo Settlement. I think the Juarez incident is definitely worth linking to in a Mexico in the American Civil War article. I hope I didn't come across as fussy. From one William & Mary guy to another, thanks for all you do, and keep up the good work. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20