User talk:BDD/Archive 13

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 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hi BDD, I hope you don't mind me contacting you but you happened to be a recognisable admin name who'd made recent changes to pages on my watchlist.

I'd like to get hold of this deleted file, as it is claimed to contain the source data for this figure which I plan to regraph and vectorise. Is that possible? An imgur link or email containing the image would be great, if that's allowed. Many thanks, benmoore 22:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as the image wasn't deleted over rights concerns or anything. Here you are. I've never used imgur before, so let me know if that didn't work. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent thanks very much, I've saved a copy. Cheers, benmoore 22:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll go ahead and delete the imgur upload then. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Steve Austin. Since you had some involvement with the Steve Austin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, man. Remember that time I took a page I created to an XfD without realizing it and I ended up giving myself an automated notification? That was awesome. --BDD (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I like your self-deprecating sense of humour. When I do it, in real life it is funny but in print it often sounds rather patronising to others which certainly I never intend but tend to overdo it. You do it really well and I for one, well it brightened my morning about your "split personality" etc. Thanks for all your hard work you put in at WP. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Eitarō Ozawa. This move would undo some undiscussed additions of macrons by Shahwould. I was thinking of closing this with a verdict that anyone could remove the macrons if they felt like it, but the closing admin would not do any moves. But now I see that User:Shahwould is continuing to create macronized names. Here is his recent move log. The one at Kyōko Ariyoshi is a straight macronization. The guidance at WP:MOSJ does not enlighten me. There is a suggestion in the RM discussion that socks are involved, but I can't follow the logic. Would it be correct to insist that Shahwould open a move discussion the next time he feels a need for a macron? How could that be enforced? Thanks for any insight you can provide, EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, User:Shahwould has made no edits since 25 January, which is when this exchange happened on User:Michitaro's talk page. If S. resumes macronizing without discussion I can leave him a warning to get consensus, or ask him to use WP:RMTR for any further moves. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The article was deleted by you on 7th Feb after discussion at "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 31#Meri Maa". I don't know why delete this article because i was already provided the info in this article. See this revision, So can you restore the deleted history, because currently this article is created by other user.. :-ChanderForYou 17:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. I thought the entire history of that page had been related to its purpose as a redirect. I'll restore that edit you made so you can view it and possibly restore some of the content. For future reference, if you turn a redirect at WP:RFD into an article, that's great—just let us know in the discussion for that redirect so your contribution isn't overlooked. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BDD, for restore the revision, It is a helpful information for this article. :-ChanderForYou 14:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania. 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) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your creation of Always-on DRM. It's a very interesting topic. I also note that when you created it last year, it was only 60 words short of being eligible for WP:DYK. If you'd like my assistance with DYKing your future articles, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you relist Talk:Communes_of_Algeria#Requested_move_2 again. There are new findings, especially the only source has switched to the name proposed in Wikipedia. Androoox (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to recreate the article Little Flower Forane Church, Nilambur which you have deleted previously due to lack of reliable sources.--Joseph 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I could restore a copy in your userspace (i.e., at User:991joseph/Little Flower Forane Church, Nilambur) or in draft space (i.e., Draft:Little Flower Forane Church, Nilambur). It doesn't really matter which, but in draft space, it's more likely that you may get other people helping you. Which would you prefer? --BDD (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See comments on the talk page here Swinnow16 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on a response now. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made edits to the first paragraph of the article and commented further here.Swinnow16 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_15#Template:Cop about the second nomination of Template:Cop in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk about the nomination of Template:wprk in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mr Whoppit. 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) 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all 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 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March 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

Greetings,
The issue was not resolved and the page is still called Talk:Egyptian Government Crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood. Can you check again please? Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not just me, then. I thought something was wrong with my cache. I'll take a look. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's still doing that. From the article Islamist uprising in Egypt (2013–present), I go to the talk page and see Talk:Egyptian Government Crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood as you said. But when I try to move that page, the system thinks it's already (correctly) named Talk:Islamist uprising in Egypt (2013–present) and thus won't let me rename the page to the "same" title. I think it's a software issue. Give it a few hours maybe. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the concencess on the RFDe was delete. I would think the outcome would be No consensus. By pure headcount, it was three deletes vs two not-deletes. By the strength of the arguments, the delete votes were against city center as a generic term, which is not the same thing as a neighborhood who's proper name is "City Center". Every city has a city center, but that doesn't mean its named "City Center" (mine for example is named "Old Town"). The delete votes also ignore that the only "City Center" in Florida we have an article on is the target. Besides, this can be boldly disambiguated as a compromise. I think disambiguation would actually be better sense it's unusual to list neighborhoods as "[Neighborhood], [State]", and it seems like perfectly plausible as an {{r from incorrect name}} for Sun City Center, Florida. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus to keep as is. If you want to give it a try as a dab, that's fine, I suppose. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree that there wasn't consensus to keep as is, even I suggested a hatnote or disambig. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I would appreciate if I could get some external feedback on a potential issue that I noticed with the "Unreliable Sources" template (Template talk:Unreliable sources), or if you could direct me to the proper place for issues like this. Thanks in advance. - Anonimski (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TFD is probably the most high-profile place for such a discussion, even if you don't want the template deleted or renamed. Such discussions do occur from time to time. If you choose that route, though, be explicit that you're not looking for deletion, or else people will just vote on that anyway. You could also try WP:RSN, but I'm not sure how much traffic you'd get there (more than a template talk page, I suppose). Alternatively, you could slap an WP:RFC tag on your existing comments to attract editors there. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame). 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. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a consensus to move, just not to where. I think if you chose the most popular name we could all live with it. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I'd rather leave it to a followup RM than try to pick one myself. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am disappointed by the decision taken against moving "Sagara, Karnataka" to "Sagar, Karnataka". I am from the same region and I know that the correct spelling of the town is "Sagar" and not "Sagara". I am for giving the right information to readers and feel uncomfortable when someone resorts to vandal abuse to forward their own propaganda. I joined Wikipedia in 2008 but did not contribute much these years. I recently started editing articles after I noticed that there are a few contributors from southern part of Karnataka state in India who are systematically promoting spellings that sound closer to their dialect. I suggest that you refer to Government websites mentioned in my comments on the talk page of "Sagara, Karantaka" before striking the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuttuHegde (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been a decision against moving yet. I simply listed the discussion a second time to try to gain more input in the discussion. I've also notified the WikiProjects for Karnataka and India in hopes of getting more editors familiar with the town. There should be a decision in another week or so. --BDD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. After failing in his attempt to rename the article Sagara, Karnataka to Sagar, Karnataka, user PuttuHegde has started renaming other articles on the same lines. Seems like he did not understand that what applied to Sagara also applies to Bankapura, Kirshnapura and so on, because the renaming is for the same reason. Please stop him from continuing this before he hits hundreds of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.23.200 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with The Admin's Barnstar for significantly reducing the Miscellany for deletion backlog. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD

Fine to withdraw the speedy nomination[1] if you didn't want to proceed after an oppose, but please can you also untag the categories?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, and thanks for taking care of that. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there! – 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) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I left a note indicating I, the creator of the category in question, agree with and support its deletion. Perhaps you can have another admin delete it in light of that. Mine should have been the last comment at the CFD; after that it looks a tad weird. Quis separabit? 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Occasionally editors at CfD object to such speedy deletions, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::: Thanks but the thing didn't delete; category not redlinked on my watchpage, so I added a speedy delete (C7, G1). I think it's because User:Ottawahitech was fiddling with it (see [2]). I don't mean to say he did anything wrong but he may have overlooked the CFD template. Thanks, Quis separabit? 23:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Quis separabit? 01:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC) why you are deleting choomanthar 3d page I can't understand please reply soon.

Choomanthar3d, the page was discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Choo mantar 3d. You were notified of this discussion. Consensus there was that the page was a fake article, which is not allowed. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC) what proofs do you need to prove it is not fake

You could link me to news stories, a website, any reliable source that proves the film is real. If you have such evidence, it would have been better if you could have given them in the deletion discussion, but you can still present them now. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC) what type of proof do you need please let me know and need little help thank you

Ideally something like a newspaper article, or a website for the film. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC) please guide me what I have to do not to delete thank you

Choomanthar3d, I want to make sure you see the conversation down here. Talk pages on Wikipedia have the newest content at the bottom and the oldest at the top. If you can link me to a reliable source that confirms the film exists, you can keep working on the page. If the film is something you made up, it can't be on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)thank u BDD how about film laboratory agreement, may be it is solid proof for you can I send it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but yes, that might work. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)HI BDD ,I got the agreement copy of said movie from the prasad film laboratories(p)ltd Hyderabad and producer's producer council membership id how can I send these to reach to you? can I scan and mail to you? ,please tell me what I have to do thank you

Is this an upcoming film? --BDD (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Choomanthar3d (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) yes, under post production.producer and banner identity Smt U. Sarojani M/s Digital Relam Flat No 101, Siddardha Ramakrishna Apartments Opp. State Home, Ameerpet Hyderabad 500073 you can find it http://www.telugufilmproducerscouncilhyd.com/life-assoiate-members.html please tell me how I have send scanned lab document along with producer's id I will send like that thank you

Hi BDD as for my knowledge telugu language film can't be produce with out membership in Telugu Film Producer's Council because we formed as association under it's guidelines we have to do publicity,you can see our recent elections stills with our celebrities http://www.cinejosh.com/telugu-events/5326/4/telugu-film-producers-council-elections.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choomanthar3d (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand. If this is an upcoming film you're involved with, I wish you luck, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, marketing, or public relations. Once the film is complete, or possibly when it's still in production, there can be an article on it if it meets our notability guideline for films. In the meantime, you may want to try another outlet for publicity. Wikia, for example, offers free wiki hosting. Perhaps the Telugu Film Producer's Council would be interested in maintaining one. I apologize for any confusion. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I noted with some dispair that I received a message (dated two weeks ago) that my personal page was going to be deleted as a fake. Sure enough, by the time I got to the page, it was deleted. So much work lost!

I assure you I am real. I am deployed military and don't have a lot of time to do wiki editing. Is there any chance of getting my page back? Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Myer (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, and sorry for your trouble. As you may have seen, your page was deleted at Miscellany for deletion—it's a similar process to how we delete articles. In this case, a user felt your page was self-promotion, especially since you hadn't edited other pages. While our user page policy "limited autobiographical content," yours looked like a pretty full biography. Your career looks impressive, and you may meet our notability guidelines for people, but regardless, autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, since neutrality is one of our prime goals.

I know having your page deleted is a pretty poor welcome, but I still hope you like Wikipedia and want to get involved working on our articles. Generally, the more someone helps out the more people will tolerate big user pages. With your military background, you may be interested to learn about WikiProject Military history. This is a group of editors who focus on military content, and it must be said that they do some really great work.

Anyway, feel free to make a new user page with a brief overview of yourself as you get involved. If you'd like to keep the content you previously wrote so you can maintain it somewhere else, I can arrange to get it to you somehow; as an administrator, I have access to deleted content. It's not gone forever. --BDD (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BDD. Yes, fully an autobiography, but I was of the understanding that since this was my sandbox that I could really do whatever I wanted. Wanting to learn, and needing to have something to write about that I honestly knew, I decided to do what looked like a biography page in my sandbox.

I certainly would like to do some editing--that is why I signed up in the first place. However, since I am currently mobilized (again!) my focus is obviously elsewhere. In the meanwhile, what would it take to garner enough "neutrality" to make this a legitimate biography? When I wrote it I purposely worked to avoid anything that even appeared biased or could not be independently verified (again, I was legitimately trying to do a good job, regardless.) Otherwise, can I not just keep a copy of it in my own sandbox?

Thanks again for responding. I recognize that policies may have changed somewhat since I originally created this page, so that may be part of why I'm off track.--Chris Myer (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, while users generally have broad latitude as to what goes in their userspace, including sandboxes, that generally doesn't include things like an autobiography, hence the deletion that happened. You could try to have it in mainspace—i.e., have it as a real article. I wouldn't really recommend that, however, because of the scrutiny that is typically given autobiographies. Is there another place you could keep this, maybe even on your own computer? --BDD (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I could put it on my computer. Maybe I could put it up on one of our websites. How do you suggest sending the content?--Chris Myer (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Further, can you please reference some Wikipedia guidance that indicated that you can't do an autobiography on a User page? I know that when creating a page it states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I do not see anything that either indicates that user page information must be verifiable, or that user pages are encyclopedic content. In fact, most user pages consist of non-verifiable information about the user. Sometimes in text, sometimes with templates. I happened to use a valid Wiki format for my user page. Are you certain that is wrong? Know that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to learn.Chris Myer (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Holocaust of Viannos Naming these events as "Holocaust" is not used outside of Wikipedia. How can this title be correctly renamed? There are also other articles with the same problematic title: Holocaust of Kedros Holocaust of Kandanos. All these articles are about WWII German mass executions and village burnings after local Cretan guerilla attacks.Wikorefo (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's going to depend on how the events are referred to in reliable sources. I was just objecting to your implication, by citing WP:USEENGLISH, that "holocaust" wasn't an English word. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry for not being clear, I thought if Holocaust was a popular term in Greek literature so that we should stick to English. The term was invented by a wiki user in English. According to the results Holocaust is not used once in English so that is really a problem. Besides did not Holocaust refer to the mass killings of 6 million Jews during WWII and here it is used seperately for every individual burned village. Then we could have Holocaust of Berlin, Holocaust of Hamburg,

Holocaust of Auswichz, Holocaust of Treblinka and so on......., RegardsWikorefo (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD. I can't undo multiple edits - could you please set back this page to the last stable version? Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gabriel, which version did you want restored? You should be able to do this yourself:

1. Click the time stamp of the version you want to restore.
2. You should now see a previous version of the article. Click "Edit" at the top.
3. You should see a warning that you are editing an old revision. Specify your reason for the reversion and save.

Just let me know if you need any help with this. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff!! Learning every day! Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD. Recently you deleted a page I am interested in after a deletion debate that did not seem to involve many people, and where counter arguments & supporting evidence were not properly represented. I would like to get the 'Human Givens' page undeleted and gather I should start by discussing this with you. Please consider the following points:

• The human givens approach is much more profound than Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, as it provides not just a theory but a practical framework, showing how the concurrent meeting of emotional needs essential for both physical and mental health^[1], and correct use of innate resources (such as the imagination), can be used to better mental and emotional health in a variety of settings, including health, welfare, education, business and law.

• Human givens is in the process of becoming accredited by the Health Professions Council.

• There are now a number of independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals of standing. These are:
  • Andrews, W. P., Wislocki, A. P., Short, F., Chow, D., Minami, T. (2013) "A 5-year evaluation of the Human Givens therapy using a Practice Research Network", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 18 Issue: 3.
  • Adams, S. (2013). Evaluation of Human Givens 'rewind' treatment to treat trauma. Poster presentation at a veteran-led research conference; Portsmouth, September 9th, 2013
  • Tsaroucha, A, l Kingston, P, Stewart, T, Walton, I and Corp, N. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of the “human givens” approach in treating depression: a quasi experimental study in primary care. Mental Health Review, 17, 2, 90–103.
  • Tsaroucha, A, Kingston, P, Corp, N, Stewart, T and Walton, I (2012). The Emotional Needs Audit (ENA): a report on its reliability and validity. Mental Health Review, 17, 2, 81–9.
  • Yates, Y & Atkinson, C (2011) ‘Using Human Givens therapy to support the well-being of adolescents: a case example.’ Pastoral Care in Education, 29, 35-50.
  • Andrews,W., Twigg, E., Minami, T. and Johnson, G. (2011), “Piloting a practice research network: a 12-month evaluation of the human givens approach in primary care at a general medical practice”, Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 389-405.

• There is also a chapter in an international text book on trauma:
  • Andrews, W., & Miller, S. (2012) The Development of a Practice Research Network and Its Use in the Evaluation of the "Rewind" Treatmnt of Psychological Trauma in Different Settings. In Hughes, R., Kinder, A., Cooper, C.L. International Handbook of Workplace Trauma Support. Oxford. Wiley-Blackwell.

• The development of a first randomised-controlled trial to test the approach is also in process. The Bristol Randomised Controlled Trial Collaboration (a partnership between the University of Bristol and the NHS) has agreed to help design it.

In light of the above, I suggest that human givens has a very clear, individual identity and respectfully request, therefore, that the human givens page (and any deleted references elsewhere to the approach) be reinstated.

What do you think?

Regards,

MIDaffin (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)MIDaffin

MIDaffin, what I can do for you is restore a copy in your userspace (i.e., at User:MIDaffin/Human Givens) or in draft space (i.e., Draft:Human Givens). It doesn't really matter which, but in draft space, it's more likely that you may get other people helping you. How does that sound? --BDD (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD. That would be great as a first step. Can you tell me what I should do next in order to get the page fully restored? What do you mean by 'other people helping' me? Given what I have said above, I think there is clear case for keeping the page. Do you agree? If so what should I do next (which process)? If not please could you explain why. Regards --MIDaffin 2.102.95.55 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD. I would like to progress this. What would you recommend? Thanks. --MIDaffin 2.102.95.108 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I can restore the page to draft or userspace on your request. When I refer to other people helping you, I mean that, theoretically at least, there are editors who would use the new draft space to help get topics ready for mainspace. In your userspace, it's much less likely that others will find the draft, though you may prefer that if you want to exercise more control over it. Keep in mind, though, that wherever the draft ends up, no one owns it. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Yes please, do restore it to my user space. I would then want to get the page back into the public space asap. What do I need to order to get this to happen? As per the above, I do not think the deletion was debated by a sufficent number of people and arguments for it were not made by people capable of making them. --MIDaffin 2.102.93.204 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done You'll find the page at User:MIDaffin/Human Givens. Just make sure to incorporate those sources and otherwise improve the article before it's tried in mainspace, lest it just be deleted again. And keep in mind that if it goes stale (generally, about six months or a year without work), it may be deleted from your userspace as well. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this and for the advice. I will make the suggested changes, get it reviewed and put it forward for mainspace. Cheers --MIDaffin 2.102.118.51 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi BDD. It looks like you were the one who originally moved the contents of the Geoengineering page to Climate engineering, and replaced it with a short entry for the former term as it relates to geological engineering/geotechnical engineering. Although the term "geoengineering" is sometimes used within that field of engineering, the term is much more broadly used and understood as referring to the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the earth's climate system, with the goal of reducing the effects of climate change (the meaning which is now listed under climate engineeering, although that page's content still mostly uses the word "geoengineering"). It's worth noting that nearly all of the pages that link to the Geoengineering page are in reference to climate change.

There was previously a listing for geological and geophysical engineering, which now redirects to geotechnical engineering. The difference between these terms (as well as engineering geology) is considered somewhat indistinct even among people who work on those fields. "Geoengineering" in that context is just a shorthand for "geological engineering," and little used outside of that field. Contrary to the new opening sentence in the "climate engineering" page, the study of proposed climate intervention techniques is not an application of these other engineering fields.

Please undo the renaming. I think that the content of the new page could be deleted, and a link to the geotechnical engineering page could be added at the top to disambiguate that less-common use of the term. Regards,Belfrey (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Belfrey, no. Yes, I was the one who technically performed this move, but it was pursuant to consensus at a requested move, so it would be inappropriate for me to revert the move on my own. None of the current content at Geoengineering, by the way, was written by me; see the page history there for a list of contributors. I see you started a discussion on the geotechnical engineering talk page a few months later. If you'd like to reverse the move, you should create a requested move of your own. If you need any technical assistance with this, I can help. --BDD (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

From looking at the history, it appears there were some opposing the change (in fact, if you delete LinguisticEngineer's accidental double vote, it appears to be 3 to 2), and a compromise (renaming it as "Geoengineering (climate)" was disregarded. The reasoning behind the original proposal by LinguisticEngineer appears to be based on the belief that climate engineering is a sub-speciality of geological engineering (it is not). The resulting arrangement is confusing at best for those who are linking to and searching for the term as it is much more widely used. I will do as you suggest, and request a move. Belfrey (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Took me a while but I think I found the Voice actor that we are looking for that Skyrim character. I've also mentioned the character in the main article itself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

(I'm revisiting this, since I was not able to respond to your query in the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

King of Hearts has a red light on his/her status, so I need someone who can respond.  King of Hearts became involved at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 16.  The immediate issue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tosca (software) in which my !vote is to restore an article from deletespace and then merge.  The article in deletespace is TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting, which has a long history, including a variety of a salt in articlespace.  Procedurally, I think it would be correct to de-Prod this article to draftspace, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting.  However, what I would prefer is to have the article restored to articlespace and added to the current deletion discussion.  At a minimum, I request the references, files, and categories.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hm. I could restore the TRICENTIS article to draft space, and you could argue for the same treatment for Tosca. Then you could merge them and push the completed article back to mainspace. How does that sound?

By the way, I don't know how familiar you are with MfD, but it's very common for those discussions to have little to no participation. There really isn't anything "questionable" about deleting after an unopposed request that has sat around for a week and half in the interests of backlog maintenance; compare to the WP:PROD process. "Questionable" though you may view such decisions, any reasonable admin is going to recognize that silence is the weakest form of consensus and will be amenable to restoring the content, as I am. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a previous discussion we have had.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that with MfD you deleted dozens of articles from the incubator where the only participant in the discussion had left Wikipedia, see Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD.  IMO, you should have vacated these nominations.  Wiki editors mostly refused to participate.  You marked these not soft delete, but delete.  One question I have for you, were there any discussions between you and other participating admins about these deletions that are not on the record?

It is not possible for me to push this article to article space, as this article has a version of a salt.  Had I been able to do so, things would have been different.  In discussion with King of Hearts, instead of helping with the blockage, he stated, "You shouldn't be restoring the article without either the consent of the deleting admin or consensus at WP:DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)".  I replied that I had never heard of such a process.  I marked the incubation template as "Assess" in an effort to attract more participation.

In this case, the nominator has now stated, "I have no opinion on its fitness as a mainspace article."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As to the literal answer to your question, it is a constructive question, but time and circumstances did not allow me to respond immediately, and now so much time has passed that the AfD could close at any time.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semantics. Any deletion discussion discussion closed with only the nominator's participation can reasonably be treated as a soft delete without it being specifically marked as such. Anyway, did you want me to restore the TRICENTIS article as a draft? I can unsalt when you're ready to send something to mainspace. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that a couple of days ago that you deleted the redirect page for iPhone 6. When I looked at the request for the deletion it was just a single person making a request to keep the redirect to iPhone and not a request to delete. Is there a reason why you deleted the redirect, since the article already was redirecting to iPhone anyway? There was no request to delete this article or redirect, but a simple clarification on its target article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same discussion? "Strictly speaking, the sixth-gen iPhone is the iPhone 5. If this is intended to refer to a future product, it should not be here" sounds like a request for deletion, or maybe retargeting to iPhone 5. I'm reasonable certain the user wouldn't've gone to RfD if he wanted to keep the redirect as it was. But you never know, some people are just crazy enough. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope we are talking about the same discussion. It was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#IPhone 6. You closed off on it and deleted the redirect, which is why I contacted you. I am not proposing a future product, but in all fairness, there are reliable sources linking a potential iphone 6 to the iphone line of devices. Its not against policy to have a redirect from that title to iPhone, as long as there are reliable sources that link the term and the device.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not against policy, but the concept isn't mentioned on the iPhone article, so it's misleading. Given that fact and the lack of objections after a week, deletion seemed a reasonable outcome. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody objected to it, myself included, because all the other user was asking for was a redirect to an article that it was already redirecting to. Thats why I never commented. It seemed moot at the time, but then you deleted it when nobody asked you too. If I thought that there was a possibility that some admin would delete the article, you better believe I would have objected to it. Furthermore, I don't feel that there will be any confusion as to the meaning of iPhone 6, if the title redirects to iPhone. Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but this is a fairly well known concept and it doesn't take a rocket science to connect iphone to iphone 6. These redirects have been in place before, so I'm not sure why this is all of a sudden an issue.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the cause of confusion here. There was no "other user"—TheChampionMan1234 was the only participant, and he's the one who made the comment I quoted above. So I proceeded per WP:SILENCE. If you really want, I can restore and relist it, but I'll ask you to reconsider. Think of the readers. A reader searching for "iPhone 6" is probably looking for a device of that name, and/or a future product. Either way, we're not going to be able to satisfy them, and having such a redirect implies otherwise. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A reader looking for iphone 6 would be better off being redirected to the iphone article rather than seeing what they get now. This is just the way that these "future device" articles have been redirected in the past. Right now its just begging some inexperienced editor to create a new article. At least with the iphone 6 redirected to iphone the get something instead of nothing at all so in my opinion, its best to restore the redirect.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Better to salt it if your concern is mischief from newbies. But I'll bring it back up at RfD. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you might bring up Creation protection. That still doesn't solve the problem of readers seeing that "creation page". JOJ ^Hutton 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. They could click on such a red link, but they wouldn't be able to actually make anything from it. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea). 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) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You just closed the move discussion going on at Talk:Bistër and I'm wondering why. There were two dissenting votes and I addressed, repeatedly, every single 'argument' they had. I also received more support than opposition. The fact that it lasted over a month shouldn't mean anything; I can't force bobrayner to rejoin the discussion and concede that there is no basis for the current title. Unfortunately, now we're stuck with just that - a title that we've no proof is even in use, much less the common name. --Local hero ^talk 19:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You may think you addressed the opposing editors' arguments, but it doesn't appear that way to a neutral party. I stand by my decision. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably see me as biased, but I can't conjure any valid reason for using the current title over Peskovi. May I ask, what did I fail to prove? What really convinced you that Peskovi is not the best title? Please excuse me if I'm taking your time, but I'd really like to know. --Local hero ^talk 19:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're within your rights to ask, of course. I wasn't really convinced of anything regarding what the title should be, otherwise I would've voted instead of closing the discussion. I just didn't see consensus there. See also my analysis in the subsection below. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Hopefully it'll get situated once and for all in the move review. Regards. --Local hero ^talk 03:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, BDD! I appreciate your close of Peskovi. I had a question about what a "no consensus" close means. Does it mean the name stays at Bistër or Peskovi? The semi-long-standing (four years) name was boldly moved to Bistër two months ago, and the move request back finished up being no-consensus, so... doesn't it move back?

It's a complicated issue and I may just take it to WP:MRV because I don't know what the right decision would've been. If I do it won't be due to any strong feelings about the move or anything against you, it's just I think that move requests to undo bold moves that wind up as no consensus should revert back to the longstanding title, and I think that's what happened here. Red Slash 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was ready to say ok based on what you told me, but I don't think your description of the situation is correct. I could be wrong—move logs can be tough to read. But it looks like Bistër has been the more stable title: see the move logs for Bistër and Peskovi. It looks like it was created as Bistër in September 2008, moved to Peskovi the following January, reverted a few weeks later. Then a copy-paste move was fixed, placing the article back at Peskovi. Why exactly that occurred is unclear, though I can see how bobrayner's revert of it five years later stretches the idea of BRD.

To make a long story short, it looks like Bistër was the original name of the article, and there's never been consensus for another title. I'll defend the decision if it comes to MRV, but I won't shed any tears if it ends up overturned. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean... exactly. You basically summed it up. Let's see what people have to say. An editor has asked for a Move review of Bistër. 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. Red Slash 23:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how this came to be moved. There was only one person besides the nominator in support of scripts (plural). — Lfdder (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a lesson in changing move requests mid discussion. I'll acknowledge some of the supporters may have supported Georgian script and opposed Georgian scripts, but they didn't say anything to make me think so. Vanisaac specifically indicated neutrality on that question. You appear to be the only one who supported the old title in the end. If you want to open a new request for Georgian script, that would be fine. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

meh, fuck it. — Lfdder (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason that is an awkward dab is that "village" without modifier in British Columbia refers to a village municipality; there are none such needing that kind of dab, but Langley, British Columbia (city) and Langley, British Columbia (township) serve as an example of the use of municipality-types as dabs. The reason I qualified it is because of such other endonym-dabs as Haina (Haida village) and there will be more for many other groups; so "endonym+village" was a natural solution, as "Squamish village" would mean "a village withing the District of Squamish"; that PRIMARYTOPIC dispute isn't over, despite the negative closures of the RM and CfD; I don't know where I'll take it but MoveReview seems futile due to the prevalent hostility towards my writing/thinking style. Too many bad ideas and misconceptions, plus the ongoing criticism of me (backing me into a corner and telling me to shut up was not a way to get me to shut up, obviously). At least you read this RM, rather than didn't have time to or think about the points as other closers have said, when not directly attacking me directly. Isn't it supposed to be "talk about the issues, don't discuss the character of an editor; for merely criticizing a bad idea or a mistaken action I'm railed at against for "personal attacks", but attacking my actual personality is becoming a common theme - while others who engage in direct insults and putdowns go unpunished (including certain admins)...... it's amazing I have the patience to put up with that...though obviously I get my back up and take umbrage and rightly so; when I'm the only one actually talking real facts and actual guidelines and TITLE etc....anyways the current dab is going to have to be debated, it's highly unsuitable because of the contest of unmodified usages of municipality-types in dabs in BC and Canada. The hostility towards non-normal-English characters evinced by the mover to Stawamus and in the Skwxwu7mesh discussions is often seen also in comments like "this is stupid" or "gibberish" etc..... see where Kwagyuilh and Tlicho redirect to......Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure a disambiguator like (Endonym village) really solves it. We're still calling the settlement a village, right? And rightly so, because it still fits a regular English definition for "village." Probably more relevant for our purposes is what a reader would search for. Especially with the likes of a Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh dispute, I think just plain (village) is the best way to make the article accessible. By the way, would there be anything wrong with names like Haina, British Columbia or Stawamus, British Columbia? Even if they're on reserves, they're still in BC. Those have the benefit of WP:NATURAL as well. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your !vote (Support) seems to contradict your reasoning here. Did you mean to oppose? --B2C 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, my comments were more aimed at IIO, to say that I really don't see the one-S Fergusons as relevant to the discussion. On a second look, though, I agree with you that there should be more evidence presented for the primary topic claim. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

On third look (man, I'm flighty today), I think the politician is a pretty clear primary topic in a TWODABS situation. If the musician had only been in one band, I'd redirect him there. The politician is rather prominent (relatively, at least). --BDD (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I was totally ignorant of the RM. I ran across it while looking at WP:AFC/R, where someone had suggested that the shorter title be created as a redirect to the longer. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Could I convince you to reconsider your closing of this discussion? Alternatively, to explain where I did not get the interpretation of the involved policies right? I count two misunderstandings / misinterpretations of policy that have been pointed out as such, one request for transliteration which has never been done for this character set (and which doesn't really matter as both ǁ and ǃ are clicks), and one support. Apart from the obvious implicit support from the proposer of the move. Is that 'no consensus'? --Pgallert (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Add-on: As the RM was the result of a bold move, and analogous to the discussion above, should 'no consensus' not mean to reinstate the old title? --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll revert the bold move. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In future cases, it would be helpful to get such BOLD moves reverted before bringing them to discussion. Since we're not a bureaucracy, BRD doesn't have to happen in that order, though it is the most convenient way to do things. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my request. I could not revert the bold move, as the talk page of the target had edits, and I didn't want to leave an inconsistent situation where article page and talk page do not belong together. --Pgallert (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if you can't revert on your own, you can place a request at WP:RMTR, under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves." This isn't very well publicized, however. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, there is always something new to discover in our maze of rules... never heard of this page before. --Pgallert (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear BDD, many thanks for quickly responding to the request to move "Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity" to "Indra's Net (book)", and doing related cleanup of spurious implausible redirects. However, while you moved the page to "Indra's Net", my actual request was that it be moved to "Indra's Net (book)". I wish to reiterate that request (I could do it again on the request page, but it seems simpler to do it here). If you are curious, optional additional background, merely FYI, is in the next paragraph.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: Part of the reason for wanting the name to have "(book)" is that there is already a page called "Indra's net" (small n). The large-N "Indra's Net" was the original site of the page, and a few hours ago it had been moved to the very lengthy title. So now with your move we are full circle. I am inclined to agree that the large-N "Indra's Net" (without "book") sows confusion. For example, in checking "page view history" for the large-N page, I kept getting the history for the small-n page. That is, the page-view tool has a bug, and confuses the large-N and small-n pages. If the page view tool has this problem -- along with the other editor who moved to the long-long title that you started with -- think of what sorts of confusion it is likely to sow in the average user. Therefore, I again request that the page be moved to "Indra's Net (book)". Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed Indra's Net already redirected to the book, so I moved per WP:SUBTITLE and WP:CONCISE. WP:DIFFCAPS specifically allows for cases like this, but you probably know the subject better than I do. I can make Indra's Net redirect to Indra's net, and move the book to Indra's Net (book). I wanted to make sure you were ok with this, because Indra's Net should not redirect to Indra's Net (book), per WP:UNDAB. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see there's a problem. Question: Could "Indra's Net" be turned into a disambiguation page? Or could we turn it into a redirect to a newly created page "Indra's Net (disambiguate)" or "Indra's net (disambiguate)"? One reason I ask is that over time, I suspect more pages with similar names may accrue. For example, there seem to be additional books called "Indra's Net", although at present the one we've been moving around is the only one with a WP article. Thus, it may be wise to start building disambiguation page somewhere. Thus my request above. What do you think? --Presearch (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd need another page before creating a dab. Right now, there are only two articles that could be called "Indra's Net." Anyway, I'll go ahead and move the book, redirecting Indra's Net to the religious topic. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good, sounds like we've done the best we can. And thanks for all your cleanup! FYI, I expect to soon copy this thread to the article's talk page, so that we know how we got to where we are now. Thanks again. -- Presearch (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but your change of name to the Roku Streaming player doesn't represent the talk page at all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. However still your changes do not reflect the talk page. Which you attribute your changes to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 March 2014‎

Thanks for the information. My new signature is..Kayoty (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In re your closures in favour of the town as the primary topic, e.g. Esquimalt, Saanich, Spallumcheen, and Saanich, please see Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move...oh, and Talk:Bella Coola#Requested move. I know I can't "poll" you for a close, but I would hope that you might comment on the primarytopic challenges on those discussions. Precedent is precedent.Skookum1 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies! I'm on a bit of a time constraint and I must have missed your edit which was within the pile. Always good to receive a reminder to be careful every now and then, right? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no worries. You meant well. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your closures on Hopi, Arapaho etc. For other cases where there is only a redirect from standalone titles to the current title, all those RMs recently re-RMd one-by-one are listed on the failed bulk RMs, with annotations as to which are "self-redirects", at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move, Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move, Talk:Yaquina people#Reqeuested move, Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move. I hadn't gotten to the rest of the continent yet, but there are many more. Also in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia; I've only scouted around European categories and haven't yet looked at Africa, or Russia, or India etc.

And just to note on the differences between US and Canadian dabs/PRIMARYTOPICS, the systemic difference in wiki-terms is that CANDAB, the no-comma-province-on-unique-town-names vs the US practice of always having the state in the title means that, while in some cases in the US the eponymous town is the PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g. Walla Walla, which I have withdrawn the RM for), in other cases the town and other things on the dab page are all immediately connected to the aboriginal people e.g. Willapa and Nez Perce and Modoc, with the peoples being inherently the PRIMARYTOPIC. And also that comma-state, being a disambiguated title, is (unless notability justifies a redirect to the town as with Walla Walla and Entiat). In Canada this is a different equation as modern indigenous names are different from the dab titles and the towns/regions named via the older terms for them are in most cases far and away the PRIMARYTOPIC. I demonstrated this last night with the googles on Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move.

Suffice to say that "the MOSTCOMMON" use of such names is going to be in Canada, and Canada is part of global usage; the argument that global usage should prevail is not borne out by sources, unless all Canadian usages are excluded....that's a conditional "unless" because in that case and many others it is difficult to search for non-Canadian hits, for one thing, and as in that case, Bella Bella, Comox and Bella Coola (which I am RM'ing this morning), any hits for the people are going to include references to the town, and hits from searches for the towns are going to be very numerous in their own right - overwhelmingly so; as with Lillooet, overwhelmingly so in all three cases. Again, the town names/usages are inherently going to be more common than references to the peoples, and googles are necessarily going to show that rather clearly. Unless all Canadian hits (in their thousands) are to be discounted so that a handful of usages in the UK and US re the peoples (as with Britannica, where their Lillooet article does not include the town at all), can override the obvious to claim a PRIMARYTOPIC topic dispute (mostly from specialist papers and books on native peoples and languages, most of them long out-of-date) is rather......ridiculous. Canadian-usage hits are going to be primarily about the town, and necessarily will overwhelm

There were many such PRIMARYTOPIC disputes on already-closed-RMs but to date none of those people fielding those objections has provided their own sources (while claiming "the sources" say the towns are not the primarytopics), other than wiki-search hits which are dubious (as with Haida, see my comments on that RM about that; instead I am told it's my job to prove what is obvious to anyone Canadian, or anyone who actually googles for those names. And further, one of the main objectors about that moved what he did, referring to sources without giving them, and without holding a discussion at all; failing the ability to show sources that justify what he did, he has since engaged in procedural manoeuvres to shut the RMs down altogether. I'm getting used to such hypocrisy and misleading claims but it is very very tiresome; such activities e.g. attempting to shut down discussions and doing things allegedly by "sources" without providing any, are what is "disruptive", as I myself have been accused/slandered of by that editor, along with a few nasty derisions too.

I have been warned, per a menacing long-term block, to not discuss other editors even when they are slandering me....and when it is their actions and false claims and narrow interpretations of only one guideline vs all the rest that are questionable - but pointing that out is allegedly a "personal attack", which I think is a misuse of NPA. Instead TLDR has been used as though it were policy to justify not reading what I have to say.....and menace me with a long-term block...... enough about that, as talking about that widespread set of attacks on me, which were used improperly IMO to close certain RMs and CfDs against my proposal - making an editor the target of a discussion, rather than the issues, has already gotten me in trouble while those abusing me and misusing guidelines per WP:Wikilawyering and who do not provide sources for their own claims continue with their campaigns to discredit me and Canadian English. My regional expertise is derided as my own opinion, even as POV, while the assertions that Canadian English is irrelevant to global English usage/mostcommon are made on a regular basis without any searches provided to make that claim (which they won't do because they cannot, unless they only use out of date sources from within their own petfield, and exclude all Canadian town-references/usages from the equation altogether. Even then, as shown re Lillooet, that cannot be done, even if older citations are allowed to stand equally with newer ones, many of them now-official uages in our country. And then I am told it is my job to disprove them, when they haven't made any effort at all to prove what they are saying.....in Lillooet's case I believe I have done that amply.

These town-moves should all have been easy, and other Canadians contributing to the discussions feel the same as I do. And, because usage of such names is necessarily going to overwhelming refer to the town in all searches, and will overwhelm any "global usage" searches necessarily, and the native peoples themselves do not use the same names anymore, the main topic of such names is very clearly the unique town name. Sure, you will get hits for the language or people as the only topic in linguistics and ethnography sources in other countries, like the Britannica case mentioned, and in older Canadian publications and government usages, but that does not prove PRIMARYTOPIC in the English language as a whole, and that argument doesn't even hold up if Canadian English usages are excluded altogether as if Canadian English were not part of global usage; which is absurd.

In Comox's case, though that RM looks to be fully supported by those present now, a case could be made that the air force base is the most widely-used meaning because of US military populations; but the base is named for the town. Another case is Saanich where again questions and challenges about PRIMARYTOPIC are being fielded though there is no RM there (yet). Town names matching local (older indigenous peoples names) are very common in BC, where they are maybe more common than in any other province. With the exception of the still-open RMs, and a faulty close at Comox, British Columbia which is now back on the table at the Comox people RM, and "the Squamish fiasco", all others have been moved by RM to their normal, mostcommon use.

Sorry to bug you, this was meant as points of information and observation, not a "rant" (another slander towards me from people who confuse lengthy explanations with "anger"). Canadian usage is a part of global usage and we are necessarily going to mention and write about the towns most commonly, and when we do write about the peoples the custom has come to be their preferred usage. Being overwhelmed by American citations from only one or two fields (linguistics and ethnography) is only possible if the Canadian context of these names is excluded altogether, which obviously isn't right. To some people it apparently is, but I have yet to see them even marginally try and prove their case; in last year's native RMs it was demanded that I produce pronunciations for the RMs as if that somehow proved that they were not English names; even after doing so my sources's validity was challenged. The underlying them in all such cases is prejudice IMO; often explicitly as with calling Skwxwu7mesh "gibberish" and "stupid"......Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 16#Template:Spelling-inline. Close? Also, since I nominated it, do I have the option of closing it myself, or no? Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it. Given the backlog, it might be reasonable for an involved user to close, but the consensus should be unanimous if so. If Si Trew agrees to my solution, I think we could proceed. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:23, 1 April 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 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20