User talk:BDD/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African people. Since you had some involvement with the African people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stanleytux (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD, sorry for the really tardy response to question you posed at my talkpage (User talk:Maxim#Rich Farmbrough RFA). Dealing with oppose votes that are based on a candidate's opinions is tricky. On one hand, how someone applies policy is reasonable to assess at RfA; on the other hand, if the candidate has a strong opinion on a matter, would he not have the judgment to recuse with regards to administrative actions? I wouldn't qualify an argument along the lines "candidate is an extreme inclusionist/deletionist" as particularly strong unless there were other arguments associated with that stance. In the case of Rich's RfA, I didn't find that a particularly strong argument, in comparison to the many others presented. To summarize the answer in a nutshell... I wouldn't consider your oppose vote especially strong unless it was qualified by other related details. Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Maxim, and I hope I'm not belaboring the point. If I knew a candidate had radical views but I was confident he would have the judgment to set them aside as an admin, of course I wouldn't hold the views against him. My point was that I did not have such confidence. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not. I'll try to elaborate if I find myself making future votes of that kind. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, do you foresee a possible close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Breeds of horse? based in what is currently in the discussion? I know I started the discussion, but the more I read the discussion, the more confused I get about what the consensus is. I'm thinking that this discussion might need to be advertised to other venues (possibly with a note on Talk:Horse which has over 700 page watchers, or maybe ... I hate to say it ... an RFC.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely complicated. I think I could come up with a close, but I'm going to at least have to make a table to figure out what's going to happen with each item. Normally I'm in favor of bundling nominations, and I don't blame you for having done so there, but with the benefit of hindsight, it would've been better to have it in smaller pieces for easier digestion. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. When I started that nomination, I was definitely doing so with the opinion that they would all have the same outcome. Well, so much for that! Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

While I was performing some dummy edits, I found this Wikipedia essay: Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I know that recently, you had taken a bit if interest in the Digimon-related redirects that were nominated, and this essay may explain some sort of concept for handling the Digimon redirects and articles. I haven't had a chance yet to look through this essay, but from the first few sentences, it looks like this essay may be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of this, and think I even remember the days of individual Pokémon articles! This may be personal bias, but I think Pokémon is so much more obviously notable than Digimon that the latter really doesn't even need as much detail as our list of Pokémon. But I haven't made a real effort to work on any Digimon articles, though. The anime WikiProject has a Digimon task force, though it would surprise me if it were very active. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As requested, I am responding to your invitation for discussion on references. I was looking over the references provided, and found two to be blogs, and one to the transcript of a QA session of a student council. An entire article has been based on these three sources, without inline citations, and with a number of the claims on the page that did not seem to be supported in those references. I do not have issues with the nature of the page; I don't believe it to be an issue of bias on my part - but isn't one often blind to their own biases? So, happy to discuss :-) Scr★pIron^IV 12:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV, and thanks for getting in touch. Blogs can be reliable sources. This one is an official blog of a presidential studies center at a university. This one seems well sourced and professional-looking, though it may be mostly the work of one person, and I wouldn't've worked from it alone. And this one looks a bit sloppy aesthetically, but you've got an author credit, an editor, and lots of sourcing. Which of the sources was a QA session of a student council? I didn't see anything like that. The first source I referred to was in response to a question, but otherwise I don't see anything related to student councils.

Not all statements need inline citations—just those "challenged or likely to be challenged". If you think this is all likely to be challenged due to the controversial topic, you might have a point. If there were specific statements you had concerns about, we can discuss them. I mostly chose to forgo inline citations there because I essentially would've just cited everything to one of those sources (probably all three) or those used in linked articles. I wanted to put readability first, though I realize I may need to make some compromises in that area. Finally, I would say that bad sourcing is still better than no sourcing, so simply removing an article's references probably isn't the best way of dealing with those situations. Tags like {{self-published}} and {{unreliable sources}} can draw attention to these sorts of issues, and if you do end up removing all references, you can at least leave {{unreferenced}}. Anyway, looking forward to hearing back from you. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure there are often better ways to do things than I do, I am still learning as I go. I thank you for the suggestions. My goal was to start a discussion, and I have found that making particularly bold revisions can accomplish that, although sometimes I guess it makes me look contentious. Half the time I get good discussion, and I learn something, and half the time I get my head handed to me on a platter :-)

If we could start with the Hauenstein Center, that article is a response from the organization to an open question on their site, and resembles a forum in that regard. As it is a studied response by the organization, it is the best source in the list. Two issues I have with it, though, are: First, we do not know who authored the response, merely that it was posted on their website. The organization has both student and faculty members. Second, the only sources it quotes are racematters.org (an arguably partisan organization) and NAS, and although it is now defunct, it is particularly interesing when looking at it on the Wayback Machine. If that source were to be used directly - as it is fully attributed to authors - it might be more valuable. It also adds some depth to the character of those presidents, and quotes from them.

Looking forward to your response! Scr★pIron^IV 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose a student could've written the Hauenstein Center piece, though that's arguably true about any academic source without specific author credits. In absence of one, I think we need to just look to the notability of the corporate name under which it was written.

I conceived of this article a few months ago and was going to wait until I could go to a library where I could refer to a bunch of print sources related to the US presidency, which I ultimately realized I don't have the time for. Eventually, I think I or someone else should do something like that to beef up the article. I think it's a very interesting subject that could be a featured list someday. For now, this is a start, and it's out there for other Wikipedians to contribute to. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Will you speedily delete User:Godsy/common.js per WP:U1 for me? I have no use for the page (User:Godsy/vector.js serves my needs at the moment). I would slap a speedy deletion tag on it (and I've tried), but it doesn't seem possible (at least to my knowledge) due to the nature of the page.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks .—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD, I'm so so sorry! - Lord knows how but I was actually looking at the wrong bloody RM!! , Christ I think should go back to bed lol, Anyway my apologies for that, Anyway thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! It's not unheard of for me to write the wrong term into the closing statement, so at first I thought it was my mistake. I definitely see the source of confusion. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope you definitely didn't write or do anything wrong - It's just me having 5 minutes of madness! , I probably deserve trouting to death after that mess up , Ah well these things happen .... I guess!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not weigh in and vote? You said that policy supports both the current title and the other title. You don't have to relist it; just put it back in backlog. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to get consensus from that discussion, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw in your closing at Talk:The_White_Shadow_(TV_series)#Requested_move_27_July_2015 that you wrote: "I note SMALLDETAILS, but also that its application is very inconsistent." Did you mean that WP:SMALLDETAILS is generally used inconsistently throughout WP, or specifically at this RM discussion. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The former. I'll edit my statement to clarify that—apologies for any confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont monitor RM enough to disagree with your assertion. However, it'd be disturbing that SMALLDETAILS is a policy if it doesn't reflect common practice. I might use this RM as a point of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles to see if changes are warranted. Any objections?—Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

*shrug* I mostly work at RfD these days, but I used to be very heavily involved at RM, and that's my opinion from having seen a lot of these discussions. You're welcome to discuss this, but my hunch is that things will remain as they are. The thing about SMALLDETAILS is that it's really an option. The wording is squishy, probably intentionally, and it permits more so than it prescribes. If you'd prefer it to be harder, I do sympathize, but I'd be surprised if consensus could really be built to do so. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt if working on content ends up being a more effective use of my time :-) Just bugs me that it's a policy if it's inconsistently applied, esp. if it's not afforded more weight at closing time. I'll re-read it based off your input, and see if it's worthy of getting into my schedule. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think sometimes, SMALLDETAILS-type differences are called for, and other times they're not. Since the search box often behaves case-insensitively, titles that differ only in capitalization may get lost in the shuffle. But the practice seems fine, and results in more concise titles, when you have a proper noun and a common one, like the main example of Red meat and Red Meat. We wouldn't have to mandate "always do this" or "always do that", but I'd like something that spells out "if X, do this; if Y, do that". --BDD (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Otterathome. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. --Otterathome (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Otterathome, yes, I think you've made a big mistake, and I think you removed articles which are entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. I see you've chosen to "template" me, but I assume you're referring to [1], [2], and [3]. I encourage you take a less knee-jerk response to Know Your Meme, which does a good job describing internet memes. "Reliable source" isn't a label that a source just does or doesn't have; a source is reliable if it makes a reliable claim in the context. (And for the external links, it's not really making a claim at all.) To address these edits individually: for Walk the Dinosaur, fine. As I mentioned in the hidden text, the link was all about justifying the article's membership in Category:Internet memes. Since you removed the category, the link doesn't make much sense either, and that's a fairly obscure meme. For Mudkip, I'm not sure why you kept the category when removing the link. There again, I would say both or neither should be present. Finally, for Chuck Norris facts, I think you're dead wrong. That information justifies the Vin Diesel facts redirect (cf. RfD) and states factual information in (perhaps unfortunately) one of the most formal contexts we'll realistically have available to refer to. Please reconsider. I reverted you there, so let this be the D in WP:BRD. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've "templated" you, as you have not read the guidelines. Your reply has yet again shown you have not read them even after my first message. As knowyourmeme is home to copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), opinions, lack of fact checked info, being an open wiki WP:ELYES, so violates 2, 8, 12 of WP:ELNO. If you cannot find a reliable source for Vin Diesel facts to mention in the article, then redirect should be deleted, not not the restoration of unreliable sources to its target Chuck Norris facts. If you continue to restore unambiguously inappropriate links\unreliable sources, I will "template" you again.--Otterathome (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Two questions: How does KYM host copyright violations? How do these removals help readers? --BDD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You closed the RM at Talk:Bongbong Marcos as a no-consensus. Doesn't policy state that it should be moved back? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bongbong" was the result of the previous RM. Sparse as the discussion was, it was upheld at MRV. That's the new default title. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Was wondering if you would lower the protection level you installed at the Template:Redirect from duplicated article page? It's presently at full protection, so could you lower that to template protected? This and one other are is the last of these rcat redirects that have not had their protection lowered. (Also, please note how the This is a redirect template automatically senses the protection level now, so that when and if protection levels are changed, then there will be no future need to add/remove templates.) Thank you in advance for your consideration! Painius  01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Paine. I actually only installed that protection in a technical sense—the page was protected already, and then I renamed it. I'll ping the admin who protected it back in 2008, Fish and karate, though my guess is the situation has changed over the years. I'll bring it down to semi-protection. How's that? --BDD (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you very much, BDD, I checked through Special:ProtectedPages to make sure that was the last of them. Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  20:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned this before, but the section of MOS:APO that you were using to move these articles was unilaterally added in 2013, and I do not agree with it. WP:PRECISION should trump a WikiProject guideline that nobody else even follows. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's well within policy itself. "Name" is more WP:CONCISE than either "surname" or "given name", is less tied to specific cultural traditions, and doesn't exclude the fairly frequent cases in which a name is usually used one way but occasionally used another (usually, a surname that gets used as a given name). Except where length or other concerns dictate we have separate given name and surname articles, why not? --BDD (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was talk page discussion, or that that language had been removed a few days ago. I'll join in there. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I spotted this decline of yours. You might want to reconsider per [4]. Also: Google. ;) 85.178.212.184 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no one's denying that nickname. The problem is that, given Wikipedia's naming conventions, "(nickname)" looks like disambiguation. So a redirect with that name suggests an article about the nickname. Variations like Lightning Bolt (runner) or Usain "Lightning" Bolt could still be appropriate, however. --BDD (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Missed the _(nickname) part. Carrying on. 85.178.212.184 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for procedurally closing Hugh Adam that (and kinda double thanks cos I think you are an admin and can close it any way you choose). The reference you originally gave, from the Scottish Daily Record, which I think is owned ultimately by Mirror Group Newspapers, I found two different (both Scottish papers) so this can serve too as a third RS, thanks. It rather a stub at the moment but my experience is that once the scaffolding is in place, "normal" editors will have a go and add stuff. I would have liked to have put in a pic but all I can find are very strictly copyright. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the category on Riverside, Lafayette County, Mississippi. What's the difference between a "former populated place" and a "ghost town"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question! I don't know. "Ghost towns" is a subcat of "Former populated places", and I suppose only appropriate for places actually called ghost towns, but... yeah, they seem pretty much synonymous to me. --BDD (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD,

I suspect you're right that many printers would have Greek letters in their font case, but I also suspect by no meaans all would. Knuth notes for example in his essay/lecture Mathematical Typography, discussing the history of the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society in a lecture about a system that went on to be TeX and METAFONT, that frequently the Greek letters are not in the same typeface as the running text, as they would not necessarily be available in italic fonts or particular sizes, for example. Were it not off--topic I'd RS it to the version avaiable online from University of Michigan, here.) Unfortunately, these days "font" tends to be used in what is rightly called a "typeface": a font is, stricly, an instance of a typeface at a particular style, weight and size. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Where I've seen mixed Greek and Roman scripts, I've often seen the Greek letters set apart, which certainly supports the idea of them being in a different typeface. I suspect context would have a lot to do with the availability of Greek letters. Anyone printing a lot of religious or scholarly materials probably would have them, though your average jobber printing playbills and legal documents probably would not. What I think is certain is that in the pre-industrial print era, Greek letters would be available, broadly speaking. Whether it was economical for a given printer to invest in them is a different question. ({{globalize}}: I'm really just talking about printing in your motherland.) --BDD (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey BDD, if you're going to delete 2020, you should get United States Presidential Election, 2020 as well. (I can't remember why I didn't add it before, probably because it was a different author. It seems obvious now...) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Could you please block User:12.174.180.50 because he is not stoping with the vandalism, and we already reported him to AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which IP did you mean? I see that one vandalizing other pages. User:190.196.11.163 was vandalizing Black Friday bushfires a couple of weeks ago. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:12.174.180.50 is vandalizing Glooscap. I see I accidentally wrote this under the Black Friday Bushfire section, but this is a different case. CLCStudent (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A different admin got it. CLCStudent (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding here so as not to clutter the RfD page. These are the ones I have seen:

• Helmsman Tom Paris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr. Chakotay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think that they are Neelix, just some random troll. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt they're Neelix as well. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I don't have anything to add right now, though I wouldn't mind being pinged if I'm mentioned further. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD,

Could you cast a gander over the topic at WT:RFD where I am bashing on about this title stuff. I think I have my meaning clear, Rs can vary from WP:TITLE but not too much, the cats that we have exclude those particular naughtinesses (that sounds very Neelix); it doesn't matter if they are currently categorised like that but that they could be as part of routine RfD (I routinely rcat Rs up for discussion and my "without prejudice" stamp is running out) and of course WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE.

But as a guideline, it's a start but I'm sure could be polished (or outright rejected). I am not, I hope, WP:CANVASSing here, asking you as an editor not an admin, and asking you as an intelligent editor who quite often disagrees with me, always politely, as I hope I do with you. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I beter @Ivanvector: as the other one I grumbled these views to; WT:RFD is even more a backwater than RfD itself. It's even more obscure than Canada. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, last month, I tagged you for a discussion at Talk:SLB Fans. I merged the content as you suggested, but I was wandering if I should merge Mística and O Benfica too, or put it through a merge discussion? I don't think it's really a controversial merge, but I a second opinion is best. Being here for I while, I know that neither article will ever be expanded beyond the 3 or 4 sentences they have, because the pool of skilled editors interest in the subject is negligible.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Threeohsix, I think you're right. Perhaps a Publications section at Supporters of S.L. Benfica describing them. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD, thank you very much for your action concerning Oxfordian theory. Right now new evidence has become known, concerning the famous portrait (engravery) of WS by Martin Droeshout. Everybody can see that this is a caricature, with some very grave implications for the existing theories. In addition to your action, I have taken initiative on the page Shakespeare authorship question. There I have deleted three categories, as they were nonsensical. My preview was: There is no reason for those three categories. This article is not theoretical, it is a historical overview. No theory is being acclaimed. I hope you can support it. Nice day to you, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zbrnajsem. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my edit. The Oxfordian article doesn't belong in Category:Fringe theory simply because it's already in two of its subcategories: namely Category:Conspiracy theories and Category:Shakespeare authorship question. There are two questions we need to ask here: is the Oxfordian theory a conspiracy theory, and it is a fringe theory? Reflecting the generally negative connotations of "conspiracy theory", Wikipedia categorizes conspiracy theories as a type of fringe theory. I don't really think we should. A conspiracy theory is simply that—a theory that people conspired to do something. And sometimes, that's exactly the case (e.g., General Motors streetcar conspiracy). So, is the Oxfordian theory a conspiracy theory? Yes. It's a theory that people conspired to obscure the Earl of Oxford's authorship of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. I suppose it doesn't have to be; I've heard suggestions that "everyone" knew, at the time, that Oxford was the true author and that the whole Shakespeare thing was a farce, but I believe this does not reflect most Oxfordian thought.

So it's a conspiracy theory, keeping in mind that that isn't a judgment on its truth. (That's beyond the scope of Wikipedia.) Is it a fringe theory, then? As defined by Wikipedia, we must say yes. Climate change is the relevant analogy here. Most Shakespearean scholars are "Stratfordians", so it would be misleading of Wikipedia to suggest that Oxfordianism is a major viewpoint in Shakespearean scholarship. Again, that's not the same as saying it's wrong.

I think Shakespeare authorship question should be under Category:Fringe theories, but not necessarily Category:Conspiracy theories. I'm not really familiar enough with the idea of pseudohistory, but my first thought is that that category is appropriate too. I will leave your edits for others to revert if desired, though. I know how contentious this issue can be. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry old bean but your relisting of Light News just now at WP:RFD has knocked out display of the sections below it (my listing of Irab Islam or whatever it was, yours of the Neelix redirects similarly). They are there in the text but your listing doesn't show up as a relist either, just as if it were listed new; something's afoot there. I'd rather you fix it than you and I get stacks of edit conflicts. Forgive the lack of full links etc, better let you know sooner rather than later. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that... the text is still there. I've seen something like this before and I think it just sorted itself out, so I was going to just wait and see. You could check at WP:HD or something. Everything is still accessible in the page history, so I'm not too concerned yet. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I got it, I'd missed a close brace in the original listing on my final comment; presumably dropped silently by the parser in the original listing. It's OK now, I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me too. I should've known it was your fault! Just kidding. Well... like 90% or more kidding. :P --BDD (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I am the younger of twins, I am used to everything being my fault. ;) Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[5] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really a caution—just a pre-XfD question. I can't contradict the evidence you've presented, but in that case, the editor was courteous and deferential. --BDD (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

hihi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:c22:51fc:8116:ed83:ff70:9fc1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 December 2015‎

Hi BDD: Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've removed a couple of the categories you added to Black-billed nightingale-thrush with this edit back in May 2014. A species is endemic only if its found in one region and nowhere else, so adding this bird to both "Endemic fauna of Costa Rica" and "Endemic fauna of Panama" is not correct. If there were an "Endemic fauna of Costa Rica and Panama" or "Endemic fauna of the Chiriqui highlands" or something of that ilk, it would be appropriate to add the species there. Let me know if you have any questions! MeegsC (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it. It might make sense to tweak the language used in the article to avoid other people making the same mistake. --BDD (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I declined this as a technical move, but transferred your RMTR comment into a discussion at at Talk:Sun-Air of Scandinavia#Requested move 16 December 2015. You cited MOS:CT, but perhaps you meant MOS:TM? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure did. Thanks for letting me know. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand this close.[6] There's no dispute that the "Male Escort Award" (mentioned in Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) is a different (minor, non-notable) award from the "International Escorts Award" (also minor and non-notable) mentioned in List of gay pornography awards. Redirects should be cheap, but they shouldn't be just plain wrong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what other outcome was possible after the discussion sat for over a month. Ivanvector's reply to you after the first list seems to sum it up best. If Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) has a bad wikilink, it should be removed. I'm not familiar with the inclusion criteria over at List of gay pornography awards, but if the awards don't fit, perhaps they should be removed too. At that point, I think you'd find consensus to delete the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there were three delete !votes, one keep. and one weak keep. Between the majority of guideline-based votes and the wrong redirect target, I do think there was a consensus to delete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enrique Márquez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Márquez 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. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think he may be best known as a poet. I can't find any of his paintings online btw--can you? Or are you able to find more references from books, etc. please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll move it to "poet", then. I figured painting and poetry are both part of the arts, broadly construed, but if he's better known as a poet, that's probably more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Feel free to expand the article if you can.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tom Brown may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Tom Brown (running back)]] (born 1964)]], former NFL player; played collegiately at the University of Pittsburgh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In accord with WP:DRVPURPOSE, I would like you to do me a favor and clarify your reason for "finding consensus to delete" this shortcut. Aside from the fact that this is a useful (1,000+ transclusions) and harmless shortcut, aside from the fact that there are thousands and thousands of very similar shortcuts used on Wikipedia, and aside from the 2:1 !vote ratio, in my humble opinion the delete rationales in the discussion were not weighty enough to come close to a consensus. Generally, I recognize your experience in closing discussions and your usual good judgement whether or not I agree; however, I truly do not understand this unusual and questionable close. Please explain.  Paine  11:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Paine, I know you hold these types of redirects dear, but I'm afraid that's affecting your reading of the discussion. It's not the first time something like this has happened. Nor is this a case—correct me if I'm wrong—where one editor is singling them all out. Editors come across these oblique redirects, bring them up as misleading, and they're deleted. It's clear that other editors do not find the likes of Template:J harmless. I note that you (and presumably others) find it useful. Usefulness is listed as a reason to keep at RfD, but it's one that I can't in good conscience weigh very heavily as a closer. Virtually any redirect will be found useful by someone. Should that be given more weight than someone who finds one harmful? There may be "thousands and thousands" of similar redirects—I'm a bit skeptical that there are quite so many—but they were not under discussion there. And the way these discussions have been going, their days may be numbered anyway.

I know you do excellent work with templates. I don't want you to get discouraged. I do want others to be able to easily take up the same sort of work without learning another esoteric language. Templates are hard enough as is! --BDD (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, shortcuts are shortcuts and the newer editors don't seem to understand that they are not their targets, they are just shortcuts. There is nothing stopping them from using the full template name, and when 1100+ transclusions of a mere shortcut is not enough to sway them, then as far as I'm concerned they are too obsessed with other people's tools to see this bigger picture. If the fact that this shortcut has to be deprecated just to "fix" its transclusions before it can be deleted doesn't say something important, then what does? (rhet.) Happy holidays! Paine  17:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think ambiguity is the bigger problem here. Since WP:J goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Template:J to go to Template:Jazz. It was clear that this template had a non-intuitive name to multiple experienced editors. Tavix summed up the problems with using "join" as a synonym for the target template, and Ivanvector pointed out that Template:Join itself didn't exist. Finally, in the spirit of WP:OWN, I would strongly suggest that there's no such thing as "other people's tools" on Wikipedia. Your tools are my tools, and they're all our tools. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say. I thing ambiguity is just the nature of shortcut redirects and the least of our problems. The bigger problem here is that with 1100+ transclusions, there is no telling how many editors find the Template:J shortcut useful. And when they find their useful shortcut deleted, they'll just create more "ambiguous" shortcuts to fill their needs. As I said, I know I'm just spittin' into the wind, here, but then so aren't we all when we delete useful shortcuts. Happy holidays! Paine  18:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

BDD, Hope your holidays are happy, and have a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel! Same to you, however you say it. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the former, but one never knows about others' preferences. Steel1943 (talk)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White privilege. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to thank you for all your help at Redirects for Discussion. Cheers! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 14:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I had been working with editor Doc James to reestablish an entry for the Alpins method of astigmatism analysis after I was found to have a COI (unpaid advocate) relationship with the developer, Noel Alpins. I was under the impression that a highly abbreviated version of my original entry had been reinstated. The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis deserves an entry in Wikipedia. I would respectfully ask for an explanation as to why that opinion is unwarranted. Kcroes (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this discussion. That only deleted a redirect for the Alpins method to the general article on Astigmatism, where it was not mentioned. So a reader searching for the Alpins method would've been mislead and ultimately disappointed. Doc James was one of the editors who voted to delete the redirect. You're welcome to work on a draft, alone or with him, or try to build consensus for discussing the method on the astigmatism article. While I can't read the minds of the discussion participants, I strongly suspect their objection to the redirect was the lack of discussion of the procedure at the target article. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Male Escort Awards. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello BDD: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 01:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I read your comments in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_12#Template:J. I fixed a few, but it looks like there are now fewer than a dozen transclusions left, so someone else must have fixed about a 1000? Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it was SporkBot. Jenks24 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It was listed in the TfD holding pen, so that's probably why. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there some trans women who prefer to be called he/him before their transition?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's at least a "maybe". See Talk:Kristin Beck#Pronouns for what caused me to check the current state of MOS:IDENTITY. But more to the point, it really doesn't matter if we couldn't find a single trans woman with that preference right now. MOS:IDENTITY, which Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM should reflect, explicitly allow subject preference to override our default practice. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump presidential campaign is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump presidential campaign 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. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the very swift and complete cleanup of the 12817Federica RfD. I often find myself having to patch up some gaps, but not with your good work.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi BDD, can you re-open the RfD discussion for "Sensibilisations" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 21? I tried contesting the CSDs for the redirect twice, but it was deleted before I could submit my argument. As I explain at the RfD discussion, the term is used in by philosophers (primarily Martin Heidegger) in their discussion of human epistemology. At the very least, the CSDs were inappropriate because the term is not patent nonsense, and there are valid, policy-based arguments at the RfD to retarget the term to Schema (Kant)#Criticism. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be that you recreate the redirects if desired, which could then be discussed on their own merits. But since the terms are not currently used at the section you suggested, I would recommend against doing so until this is remedied. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. My motivation at the RfD discussion was simply to suggest a target that would be helpful for readers that would want to know more about Heidegger's theories. Likewise, my motivation for contesting the CSDs was to show that this was, indeed, a term that was not "pure nonsense." I agree that there should be something written about Heidegger's use of the term at the target, but unfortunately that will have to be a project for another day. In any event, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I'm always wary of redirects that aren't explained at their target articles, because they pretty much ask readers to figure it out on their own. And with philosophy—IMO one of the most opaque academic disciplines, and certainly the most opaque among the humanities—that's going to be especially difficult. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi BDD, I noticed you just closed the discussion for Existentialisation, et al. at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 20. Can you please relist this for further discussion? It appears that earlier "delete" votes may not have been aware of the fact that the terms are used in mathematics and metalogic. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Notecardforfree, that seems unlikely to me. The nomination statement, in fact, mentioned the term's use in mathematics, as well as other fields. You may contact other participants in the discussion, and I'm open to the idea if they overlooked this. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, BDD. I'm pinging Legacypac, Rubbish computer, Ivanvector, and Tavix to see if they were aware of my subsequent comment about the use of the terms in mathematics and logic (including a citation to an explanation of the term in this book). I know Ivanvector responded to my comment, but did not change their vote. If everyone was aware of my comment, then I'm happy to keep this closed as "delete", but I just want to make sure that participants were aware of the arguments I presented. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was very clear in the nomination even linking to various uses. The later comments mainly confirms my point in the nomination. If someone wanted to build an article on one of the words, that might be fine, but as redirects they don't work as you will not find anything about these words at the target. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping. I read your comment a few days ago and was ready to flip my !vote, but hesitated after reading Si's reply since it seems like it can be used elsewhere too. Can this be explicitly defined somewhere? That might be the best course of action going forward, and would support a recreation if that is the case. While it's definitely a word, I usually argue WP:NOTDIC for these type of redirects unless we have some information on the word itself or it's a common variant. After all, we're not a dictionary service. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick replies, Legacypac and Tavix. I'll go ahead and withdraw my request to re-open this discussion. I still maintain that "existentialization" is a synonym for "Existential quantification", but I will admit that my position is not supported by consensus. In any event, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Notecardforfree: Wait, they're synonyms? That's not the vibe I was getting from the earlier discussion... I thought it was a distinct but similar process, but I'm not well versed on this subject. If that's the case, couldn't you just put "(also known as existentialization)" in the lede and cite the textbook? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Tavix: Existentialization refers to the act of qualifying a variable with an existential quantifier (represented by the symbol "∃"). In that sense, it is synonymous with "existential quantification." I like your suggestion of adding existentialization to the lead (with a citation to the textbook). I'll return to the article for existential quantification over the next few days to try to make it more readable and less technical. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me. Actually I'm fairly sure the edit to my comment came before your longer explanation about the mathematical usage, since I don't remember seeing it. I don't have any objection to recreating the redirects if a proper target can be decided upon, but if it's vague then I think these are better off left red. I'll admit I don't quite get it, and I can't access any of the textbook links. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, Ivanvector. I'm sorry to hear that the source from google books wasn't accessible. It says: "An existentialization of a sentence with respect to a given name occurring in the sentence is obtained by the following two steps: (1) Replace at least one occurrence of the name in the sentence by a variable α, where α does not already occur in the sentence; (2) Prefix ∃α to the open formula resulting from step 1." I admit that the article for existential quantification could use significant clarification, but this is essentially the process described in the lead of that article: "It is usually denoted by the turned E (∃) logical operator symbol, which, when used together with a predicate variable, is called an existential quantifier ("∃x" or "∃(x)")". I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and hopefully, in the future, we will have a much clearer explanation of this process somewhere in this encyclopedia. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He was allegedly removed from the board because Wales did not agree with the proposed changes. Wales denies this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion. Did I do everything right? SLBedit (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep! --BDD (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25