User talk:BDD/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Concerning this proposed move discussion, the only justifications offered by the three supporters were vague phrases like "usage, accuracy and style", "simplest and most logical one", and "quality and simplicity". Of these, only simplicity (because taking out the dash is shorter) is self-evident. The remaining arguments could just as easily been used to support adding the dashes as removing them. Weigh that against the reliable sources that I supplied which show that international committees that are responsible for the naming of these proteins include dashes in the names. Also please see the related discussion at Talk:Interleukin-10 receptor and Talk:Interferon-γ_receptor_1_and_2_mutations.

In addition, please note that all existing citations in the IL10 family and IL17 family and most citations in interferon gamma, interferon beta 1a, interferon beta 1b, and interleukin 12 subunit beta articles use dashes in the names of individual interleukins and interferons. Hence these name changes, especially for IL10 family and IL17 family, are not supported by the citations that are currently in these articles.

Finally I would request that you carefully review the editing histories of supporters NyascaB (talk · contribs), Luzonaga (talk · contribs), Lientinge (talk · contribs). Each of these accounts commented on the proposed page move on the same day that each made their first edit. Furthermore, each of these accounts used very similar arguments in this and in other page move discussions, share a common pattern of editing European related articles, made relatively few, mostly repetitive edits, and have made no or very few edits after the first day the accounts were created. In short, all three appear to be thinly disguised single purpose accounts. Hence I suspect sock puppetry. Editors 128.179.131.71 (talk · contribs), 128.179.128.236 (talk · contribs), (both IPs from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) and Leersbren (talk · contribs) may also be related. Boghog (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

To the list of suspected sock accounts, one could also add Onegasc (talk · contribs) (compare diff and diff (Onegasc and NyascaB used identical page move justifications "Usage, accuracy and style"). They also share a common Swiss interest (Onegasc: diff, NyascaB: diff). Finally there is a significant overlap in page move discussion that these four editors (Onegasc, NyascaB, Luzonaga, and Lientinge) have participated in (see here and here). Boghog (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm. You might have something here. I don't think the argument advanced by NyascaB is in any way invalid, however. Since Wikipedia doesn't always use official names, we might omit hyphens used by official naming bodies if they don't conform to regular English-language hyphen usage. That seemed to be the case with some of these items. However, I am concerned at the apparent sockpuppetry. Some of this does look suspicious. For example, both NyascaB and Lientinge have functionally identical user pages, only consisting of plain wikilinks to their talk pages. It's possible we're dealing with meat puppetry here—or perhaps Lientinge just chose another editor on whom to model his or her talk page—but it would be quite a coincidence if there were no relation between the accounts.

I wish this had been a singular move, which would have been much more straightforward to reopen and relist. As such, perhaps you should open a sockpuppet investigation. I'll share my perspective there. If the consensus from that RM were found to be a phony one resulting from improper behavior, I'd be happy to reverse all of the moves. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However I do not buy NyascaB's argument since there are no clear rules on preferred English-language hyphen usage in these cases. Where does it state that common English usage and style would preclude a hyphen in interleukin-10? The WP:HYPHEN section in the WP:MOS does not specifically cover cases like this, although this usage may qualify as a compound modifier (see hyphenated compound modifiers and specifically the "numbers, whether or not spelled" examples; e.g., "the interleukin-10 cyctokine"). The Economist style guide suggests that this type of hyphenation should be used in common writing when it also is used in the corresponding technical literature in fields such as rifles (AK-47, AR-15), aircraft (P-3 Orion, DC-10, MiG-23, and ironically the Ilyushin IL-10), etc. The hyphenation rules in the technical literature for protein names are very clear cut:

When naming proteins which can be grouped into a family based on homology or according to a notion of shared function (like the interleukins), the different members should be enumerated with a dash "-" followed by an Arabic number, e.g. "desmoglein-1", "desmoglein-2", etc.
— "Protein Naming Guidelines". Recommendations on Biochemical & Organic Nomenclature, Symbols & Terminology etc. International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Hyphens are used in a very analogous way in part numbers:

There is a strong tradition in part numbering practice ... to use suffixes consisting of a "dash" followed by a number comprising 1 or 2 digits ... These suffixes are called dash numbers, and they are a common way of logically associating a set of detail parts ... that belong to a common ... part family. For example, the part numbers 12345-1, 12345-2, and 12345-3 are three different dash numbers of the same part family.
— Part_number#Dash_numbers

I also agree with you that this move proposal should have been split into individual page moves, or at least have been split into groups (interleukins, interferons, SDF-1, and TNF-α). The most clear cut cases are the interleukins where an overwhelming majority of the technical literature includes a hyphen in these names (compare Google scholar: 587,000 vs 19,600 results). Hence I feel most strongly about the interleukin page renames and less strongly about the other page renames.

Finally, thank you for offering support in a sock puppet investigation, but I fear that a check user request would be denied since these accounts are stale. In any case, these proposals are not meant to be merely votes but should also be based on strength of argument. Boghog (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello BDD. There are some complaints that WP:MRV is a wasteland and no admins do anything there. Seeking to dispel this impression, I considered trying to close WP:MRV#Deadmaus. You were the closer of the first RM, and if we follow the argument of User:Keith D the only valid question at MRV is whether the first RM was correctly closed.

At the time of your close, you just said 'Moved' and you didn't give any detailed closing comments. Would it be safe to say that you were guided by the numerical vote in doing your original close? Or, did you consider that there were policy arguments that were strong enough to decide? I think I'm trying to reconstruct the step of move review that was skipped in this case. Whoever is unhappy with the result is supposed to go and discuss the matter with the closing admin before opening any appeal. I'm not unhappy, and I'm neutral on whether the article is moved. I just want to see if you want to give a fuller account of your reasoning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal to say beyond what I did at MRV. Yes, I considered the numerical vote strongly. I know, I know, WP:NOTAVOTE and all that, but with both sides making policy-based arguments (basically, MOS:TM for the move and WP:COMMONNAME against), I don't think there was anything improper about doing so in this case. I also considered similar titles (cf. WP:CRITERIA), such as Korn and Kesha, a title which has been repeatedly validated in discussions despite more sources using the stylization Ke$ha. In these cases, MOS:TM has won out over COMMONNAME. I will admit, though, that this does not always occur, and some RMs have chosen the common, stylized name of a subject. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO this clarification is insufficient. Korn comes up with more results than KoЯn in a Google search (it's also hard to type without unicode knowledge), and in the move discussions for Kesha, people seemed to forget that MOS:TM was a guideline. Did you forget in the Deadmau5 RM closure that COMMONNAME is a policy? You could've also reminded people in your close of arguments that were wrong (i.e people using the Se7en example, which doesn't work as it is sometimes stylised as Se7en) and considered other points (that were later discussed in RM 2) that could've made you change your mind with your super!vote, when instead you used the numerical vote and, by my assumption, used the Kesha moves that, as explained above, have a couple of problems. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that the admins temporarily change the article title to Joel Zimmerman (Deadmau5's real name). It is commonly used in sources. It is undeniably accurate. It is not made up by wikipedians. And it is uncontroversial (there are no 5s in it). Until a consensus emerges in the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 debate, I think it should be moved to Joel Zimmerman. I think the simple fact that the name "Deadmaus" was created out of thin air by wikipedians based on 8 rogue unreliable sources from websites you've never heard of should means it should not be used unless there is a strong consensus, which there is not. MidnightRequestLine (talk)

BDD - I started a proposal to move the article title to Joel Zimmerman. I hope that this is seen as a valid proposal because it is a brand new suggestion that we have not yet argued about. Thanks for your consideration. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear BDD, consolidating the moves is not a problem at all, if you think it'll make the renamings easier or quicker. Thanks for the help! By the way, please add (by way of explanation):

"The English namings I've proposed are not controversial in the zoology field. They're used in all fora here (Cape Nature, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), etc.etc. I can keep on naming them) and, far more importantly, have the recognition of the actual government bodies which manage biodiversity in the countries in which these species are endemic. The outdated names are also deeply misleading. The Homopus species aren't "Cape Tortoises" because most of the species don't occur in the Cape - only one does (Homopus areolatus) and the other unrelated tortoise species that DO occur at the Cape are of other genera (Chersina, Psammobates), not Homopus. The so-called "Karoo Cape Tortoise" (Homopus femoralis) is actually not the one which lives in the Karoo, its centre of distribution is the grasslands of the Free State. It's now officially the "Greater Padloper". Homopus boulengeri on the other hand IS restricted to the Karoo region 100 percent, and is therefore officially named the "Karoo Padloper". I hope you can now begin to appreciate how confusing and misleading the out-dated naming is. For these (and other inaccuracies) the current names are no longer recognised by the government biodiversity bodies here, and should be changed. Abu Shawka (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD,

I'm just leaving a message to let you know that I responded tio your comment at Talk:SMART criteria#Requested move.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it was highly inappropriate of you to revert the close of your own RM. Please contact Miniapolis, the closing administrator, with concerns. Perhaps she'll be willing to relist the discussion. But reverting the close of an RM with which you're involved is not BOLD; it's disruptive and, frankly, disrespectful. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I will be contacting the closing admin. Yaris678 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there is a slow edit war over at Deadmaus, where the body text is repetitively being changed back and forth between DeadMaus5 / Deadmaus. I don't really care which side wins, but it looks like the camps are talking past each other. The reverts are slow usually only a couple a day, haven't seen anyone cross 3RR in a 24 hour period. As it doesn't involve 3RR, wasn't sure were to bring this up, so figured I'd ask you since you closed the RM. PaleAqua (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Arg. This is really hard. Not sure which of these I'll go with...

• Reluctant overturn This is really tough. I voted in favor of the move, and given that a majority of participants favored the move and didn't use out-of-policy arguments, I don't see a reason that a move result would be inappropriate, though the discussion was close. It comes down to the non-admin close, and that half breaks my heart. I was a prolific performer of those before I was made an admin, and I completely endorse the idea of qualified editors getting involved with these. Especially with the backlog looking like it does, I want to see more RMnacs, not less. Still, those editors need to tread carefully. Really contentious discussions need to be left to admins, even if that results in a long wait. If someone can make a legitimate case at MRV against an RMnac, it's almost proof that that closure wasn't appropriate. Obi-Wan, don't get discouraged. Your help is appreciated, and mistakes will be made. But if in doubt, don't close as a non-admin. Sorry.
• Endorse A majority of editors in the discussion supported the move, and their arguments were based on policy. Some oppose voters made very weak arguments, such as procedural complaints. That's enough for me to say consensus. It wasn't a strong, blowout consensus, but so what? And, recognizing B2C just kind of came up with the Yogurt Rule, I think there's a very real chance that it will prove to be a valuable principle, and that a Hillary Clinton title would be more stable. Obi-Wan probably should have left the close to an administrator, but the right decision was made. As an active RM admin facing a significant backlog, I appreciate the help of non-admins in good standing helping out, and I don't appreciate editors latching onto that status to object to a move they just don't like. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

well, both seem graceful, and kind to me, so I appreciate that. Best of luck deciding! I think I'm done responding over there, I've probably said enough (or too much). cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw that you endorsed the HC move. Thank you, and please don't take it the wrong way that I disputed your endorse of the other one. It's perhaps an academic point, but whatever... I don't think HC will stand, but c'est la vie, I'm leaving for warmer climes, I've taken too much sh*t for now. Best regards and I do appreciate the vote of faith from an experienced closer like yourself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted some additional considerations about the proposed move to Ovatoryctocare. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sega Mega-CD game covers & Category:Screenshots of Sega Mega-CD games are both populated by entries in the templates in the individual media so the bot can't process them. Are you able to manually adjust them all? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive. The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There's an ongoing discussion at The Dark Knight. Care to weigh in? Randomuser112 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you were an administrator who made a recent edit and I have a question. Could you semi-protect 2013 NBA Draft until tomorrow? The draft begins in about 5 minutes and the draft pages are always subject to tons of vandalism. Thank you! Mpejkrm (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Sure. Normally you'd want to go to WP:RPP for this sort of thing, but this is a modest, reasonable request. I'm happy to do it for you. --BDD (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that the NBA draft is over, can you unprotect it? buffbills7701 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey BDD

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to take a look at this, here. Perhaps I could kindly ask that if such a situation arises again, you could give the person who's written all the pages a buzz - I didn't notice any of the prior discussion. And if you can help to reverse it all, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Wikidea 16:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I had no position on the move, and I may even be the one to reverse it if your new RM is successful and I close it. However, I find your suggestion that you should have been notified abhorrent—see WP:OWN. It's your responsibility to watch pages or browse administrative fora like RM if you're interested. The notion that anyone needs individual notification of changes to an article is, frankly, ridiculous. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Settle down there. I'm suggesting it's a matter of courtesy! Usually when there are people who would be obviously interested, we would tell them. It's not one article, it was two articles, and 195 category pages. I'm not blaming you. Do as you will, but I hope you can see why this is frustrating. Wikidea 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not upset, and I can understand why this is frustrating to you. But there's just no practical way for an RM closer to investigate top editors for a particular article every time there's a move. In technical terms, it could be done, but it would be a significant drag on a process with an already considerable backlog. No hard feelings. --BDD (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. You administrators already have a lot to cope with! Wikidea 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that as you contributed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals, there is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal transportation which you may be interested in. Thank you! Seal Boxer (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why rap up the debate so early on? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Early? The debate was open for the regular listing period of a week. Well, a couple of hours short of the 168 that entails, but the decision was easy—we consistently redirect politicians who are judged non-notable to the race in which they are involved. It's possible as next year's gubernatorial race approaches, he'll get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. While you're free to try to overwrite the redirect with an article, I'd strongly encourage you to only do so if you can show significant improvement over what it looked like when it was at AfD. A weak article is likely to just be re-redirected, and editors may find your behavior disruptive. If you'd like, I could guide you through the process of making a userspace draft. --BDD (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Track listing. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD, I am working on a page that documents an organization that my University has started working with, GPM Global. When I went to create the page, it stated that I should check with the deleting administrator. If you check my sandbox, you will find what I have written. Please let me know what the appropriate measures are to establish the page. BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfinley2013 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 July 2013

Hi Bfinley2103. I took a look at your sandbox, and as it stands, this would not meet our inclusion guidelines. In particular, you only have two references. The first is a reference to the company's own website. Primary sources and self-published sources are permitted under certain circumstances, but they should be restricted to the very basics—when the company was founded, where it's headquartered, and other basic matters of fact. Your second reference is to another Wikipedia page, which is almost never acceptable. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source (this would only work for a statement about Wikipedia, and even then it would count as a primary source). It's appropriate to use wikilinks to link to other articles, but not as references.

The GPM Global article at the time of deletion also had two references, both primary sources. I'd encourage you to look at the deletion discussion for the page for ideas on how to create an acceptable article. In particular, the standards of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH need to be met. Furthermore, given your personal relationship with the company, you should review our conflict of interest policy. It may be smartest to wait for an uninvolved person to try to make an article on this company. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD, I am not involved with the company. I am a student at UCI in Costa Rica and my professor requested me to write this up. I will source more references external to the organization's site. Thank you BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfinley2013 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello BDD,

Can we just take this the issue at Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic to RFC and have third-party editors vote and go from there? The votes of partisan's has been clearly displayed by the votes of the move anyways. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate right now to open an RFC asking the same question as the RM. If you wanted to wait a few months, that would probably be fine. You could, however, start an RFC regarding Azerbaijani transliteration or romanization. See Wikipedia:Romanization for an example of such guidelines for other languages. If consensus led to a guideline that would favor the spelling proposed in the RM, moving the article at that point would be reasonable. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan helpful in this undertaking. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think that will be helpful. The alphabet of Azerbaijan is Latin anyways. WikiProject Azerbaijan or WikiProject:Armenia for that matter wouldn't be helpful either. Partisan votes stem from there anyways. I will do an RFC in a week or so. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a large backlog of discussions at RfD awaiting closing, some outstanding for over a month. I cannot close any of the discussions from 6 June or earlier (and probably some later than that too), so if you have the time it would be very helpful if you could help reduce the backlog. Thank you, Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The admin backlog has now been cleared, thank you very much for your help. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew there was something I had forgotten to do. Thanks. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow up to your closure at Talk:Boulenger's cape tortoise. At the bottom of the move discussion someone observed that three undiscussed moves were done in late June to capitalize 'Cape'.

In my opinion, the following moves should occur to restore the status quo ante:

• Beaked Cape tortoise -> Beaked cape tortoise
• Boulenger's Cape tortoise -> Boulenger's cape tortoise
• Karoo Cape tortoise -> Karoo cape tortoise

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I mentioned these moves in an additional comment after the RM discussion. I suspect these titles refer to a specific cape (geography); it doesn't seem likely that any lifeform could make its habitat only on a cape generally. I reverted the move to Common padloper, which was unambiguously against the consensus of the RM, but the other moves seem sensible. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball franchise postseason droughts. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Are you sure you are not letting your uncomfortability with an aspect of the majority argument influence your judgment of consensus? I would like you to review your close or perhaps have another admin review it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I weighed arguments rather than counting votes. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask what you hope to accomplish by having the result, presumably, overturned from no consensus to not moved? --BDD (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You are basically using your close to undermine the validity of the majority argument, and by saying "no consensus at this time" you are already pointing towards a future move. I also think you are misinterpreting the argument not to move which is not simply that scholarly usage trumps popular usage, but rather that popular usage trends are also clearly changing against the proposed location meaning that the current location is not a specialized or uncommon usage, which is supported by the fact that reliable contemporary sources don't use the proposed name. Your close strikes me as partial rather than objective, and the rationale seems more as if you should have simply voice your opinion in the discussion instead of closing it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're conflating the general reasons against the move with your own. Arguments like changing usage are valid, and were the most effective counterpoints to the COMMONNAME argument. Of the editors who made policy-based arguments, the split was more even, resulting in no consensus—and thus no move. Is this really a battle worth fighting? --BDD (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not fighting a battle. I am saying that I disagree with your close and your interpretation of the distribution of arguments and of policy. I also don't see any editors making arguments not based in policy as you suggest. WP:COMMONNAME for example states that " Generally, article titles are based on 'what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." It also states that "the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources" So all of the arguments that are forwarded are based in the same policy. This is a question of how to apply commonname, not about whether it applies. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus:: I'd say, if you believe the close was an incorrect judgement of consensus, WP:MRV is there for that reason. Even if the end result might be the same (no deletion), I agree that "no consensus" and "not moved" have different impacts and it might be relevant to ensure the close reflects the discussion properly. (No comment on that particular close.) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize we had that process, but I am not sure a move review is necessary, particularly it would be odd to open a review to change a no consensus to a not moved. I hope to convince BDD that he misjudged consensus by wrongly discarding some arguments as non-policy based when in fact they were policybased. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Moctezuma II. 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. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amish romance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this article move. However, I notice that the request was to move to "David Soren (archeologist)", but the actual move (perhaps simply by accident) was to "David Soren (archaeologist)". The difference seems to be a matter of US versus UK spelling. Since he's an American, I suggest the US spelling (i.e., "David Soren (archeologist)"). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I learned something today. It didn't occur to me that there were two ways to spell it, nor that I would be using the British spelling. I'll take care of that. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, are you sure about that? We have Category:American archaeologists, all of which seem to use the ae spelling. I'm no subject expert, but it seems that spelling is dominant generally (noting at Archaeology the note from the Society for American Archaeology), so this wouldn't really be an WP:ENGVAR issue. We could certainly use the e spelling as a redirect, but per WP:AT, wouldn't it be better to title it "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"? It's also a good dab principle to use more common dab terms where practical. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

After a little further investigation, I think both spellings are acceptable in the US. Maybe we should just create a redirect and leave it at that. I don't have time right now to check deeply. Later I'll try to remember to check the COD. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Might also want to take this up with WikiProject Archaeology. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The COD says both spellings are used in the US. Therefore, I think the spelling you used (together with the redirect) is best, since it is acceptable everywhere. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I just ran across this nugget at American and British English spelling differences: "although archeology exists in American English, the British version archaeology is probably more common". —BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

My vote was struck out here. User:neo is the user who asked for the name change, but wrongly started a Rfc on it, instead of a RM. He did not know how to make Rfc to RM so I just helped with the conversion and am not the true requester of the move. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've gone ahead and made the move, but I'll go ahead and unstrike the vote. I'll also remove your signature for the nomination to avoid confusion. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar move request at Talk:Māllīnātha. Can you take a look at it? Rahul Jain (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm working my way up through the backlog. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably relist this tomorrow; I prefer not to relist too many discussions all at once, since that's just moving backlog clutter elsewhere instead of cleaning it up. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you don't answer this one! jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to say thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

On 13 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amish romance, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amish romance. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 00:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

BDD, if you're not too busy could you do me a small favor? I'm baffled by the opposes at Talk:Virginia State Route 66. They seem to be using WP:USSH naming conventions about State Routes, and arguing that they should apply to pages that aren't specifically about State Routes, at least in part because of some wikidrama in 2006. Could you take a look at it, because I'm starting to think that there might be something I'm missing here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page, but basically, I provide it a list of templates to orphan and it does the rest. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, BDD. The article List of military slang terms was recently merged to Military slang as you recommended at Talk:List of military slang terms#Requested move. As a result, Military slang now consists mainly of commentary on the merged lexical items. The lead section of the article does reflect the article's actual content, nor does it discuss the concept of military slang in a manner proportionate to the lexical content. Assistance you can provide in repairing and expanding Military slang, especially its lead section, will be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Armoured fighting vehicle. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You recently closed them move discussion for Zadoc Dederick. I am not sure I understand what it means to close a discussion as having reached "no consensus". Can you please explain? Thank You. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In a no consensus move, there isn't consensus for the move, but there also isn't consensus against it. In practice, "no consensus" and "not moved" often mean the same thing since the page isn't moved. The subtle difference is that it's probably ok to revisit a no consensus decision after a few months, or maybe even weeks; "not moved" generally means you'd want to wait much longer to propose the same move. You may be interested in the discussion at WT:Requested moves#Does "no consensus to move" mean "consensus to not move"?; these are my opinions, and not all editors share them. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD

I have fixed incoming links to Gojira, changing them all to Gojira (band), and closed the move request at Talk:Gojira. Would you be able to actually effect the move itself? Gojira (band) needs to be deleted, then Gojira moved there, and finally Gojira (disambiguation) moved to Gojira. If you're not able to do it now I will put a speedy deletion tag up so another admin can delete Gojira (band).

Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Much thanks for the cleanup. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD, Thanks for you action on the move request. Does it require more votes, clearer policy citations or more evidence? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Another administrator might disagree, but I still don't see anything to choose from. It appears there was no activity at the RM since it was relisted, leaving only you and one other editor in disagreement. So I decided to figure out my own opinion, and I've registered my support for the request. As I am now involved, someone else will have to make the close. You can post a request for closure at WP:ANRFC if you desire. --BDD (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BDD, I posted it on WP:ANRFC. Greatly appreciate your help. Chaipau (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you deleted the article without closing the AFD. LFaraone 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So I did! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --BDD (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, come to help us to solve the dispute, i am afraid that off-wiki invited meatpuppets will now come to revert. Can you say your opinion on talk? Thanks anyway! --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I know little to nothing about the subject in dispute. I'd recommend you follow another method for receiving outside help. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up - I've only been able to pick up loose ends of a Featured List review I'm doing. Cheers! SFB 20:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That was an intentional {{distinguish}}, but thanks for looking out for me. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who declined the G6 tag [1]. I am the one who added the G6 tag [2] and then sent it to RfD [3]. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! Too early in the morning for me. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't a G6 situation; that's meant for things such as history merges, getting rid of maintenance categories that aren't useful anymore, and pagemoves. No other criterion applies, and while I'm willing to follow our most basic policy and speedy delete things that don't have applicable criteria when the situation is justified, I don't see why we need to follow that course right now. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a reason it needed to be kept before I closed the RfD. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't attempting to get in the way of deletion and have no objection to you closing the RFD as "delete"; I just wanted to make sure it got discussion, since it didn't seem to qualify for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD

I've had a message at User talk:Amakuru#re-open RM at Rochester, NY metropolitan area? regarding a non-admin closure I made at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. With two oppose votes and two supports, with valid reasons given for the opposes, and also various similar discussions such as Talk:Brunswick,_Georgia_metropolitan_area#Requested_Move_2, which have been closed the same way, I thought it reasonable to close it as non consensus. I can't imagine an admin could have closed the discussion any differently, hence it should fall into the "uncontroversial" category, and I don't really think I need to reopen the debate as requested. As an experienced admin in these matters, what do you think of the situation? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now! Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That discussion needs to be relisted for further discussion. See my comments there. Please revert your close. Thanks! --B2C 20:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Need" is quite a strong word. But you make a fair point, and had I seen it, I would have closed as no consensus. However, I don't think it would be valuable to relist the request yet again. If you'd like to move the page to your suggested alternative, you can open a new RM. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing to suggest alternatives mid discussion. Good call. Thanks. --B2C 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When will you close remaining discussions in this project? Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometime between now and never. Sorry I can't be more helpful. I'll probably get to the Pacific Games shortly, but I may leave the others for someone else. Not that admins are assigned certain areas, but I'm not really a regular TfD closer; that page was just on my watchlist since I had nominated something there. Be patient, or leave a note at WP:ANRFC to formally request closure at the admins' noticeboard. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not admin. Can I close them? Banhtrung1 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Have a look over non-admin closure and make sure you're adhering to what's there. In short, don't close a discussion you're involved in, make sure consensus is very clear, and only stick to decisions you can carry out yourself (such as keep outcomes). It's good practice to include the {{nac}} template after your signature at the close, and to revert if an admin asks nicely. Especially if the admin seems to have a dog in the fight, however, you're generally not obligated to do so, but expect people to side with the admin if there's a conflict. If you ever have any questions, you can feel free to get in touch again. I was a prolific non-admin closer at WP:RM before I was handed the mop. --BDD (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You helped me by moving Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1 (season 8) to an easier to identified title, which matched the with the official alternative title used in throughout the season. Once again I need help with something similar. The rapidly approaching tenth season is titled Aqua TV Show Show, however I mistakenly created the page under Aqua TiVo Avoidance Plan as I originally thought that the tenth season would go under that title and the eleventh season next year would be Aqua TV Show Show. The problem is Aqua TiVo Avoidance plan is the current title for the tenth season, and Aqua TV Show Show is a redirect to the episode list. Can you please move it so the tenth season goes under its proper title. Sorry to repost this, another user after me added somthing to my section by mistake and I wanted to make sure you didn't get confused and think it was me. Grapesoda22 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Aqua TiVo Avoidance Plan has been moved to Aqua TV Show Show. The former now redirects to the latter. Should it, or will that be the title of the 11th season? --BDD (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BDD you've been a big help. Grapesoda22 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Recently you closed discussion here. There are over two dozens sources available which discusses it as old kamrupi dialect, which can be used for article development, if an consensus reached, otherwise too difficult, with just four sources provided by opposing party. Reconsider भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you have closed some of the Templates for Deletion/Merge discussions, so I thought you'd be the right person to go to. I'm wondering how long does a proposal for a template to be deleted/merged stay open for? I was under the impression that it was seven days, but looking at the page for July 13 (here), most of them are still open. Are they closed on a case-by-case basis or do certain types of proposals stay open for longer than others? How does it work?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question...just some curiosity from someone who doesn't know the "inner workings" (and can't seem to find the info anywhere else). --Schaea (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

By default, most discussions close after a week. Article merge discussions sort of go on as long as they need to, mostly because there isn't a formal system that governs them the way there is with XfDs. RFCs are the main exception, with a default run time of 30 days. In practice, however, it can take much longer to close discussions, particularly if consensus is unclear or discussion gets overly complicated. Different XfDs have backlogs of differing severity. AfD is high-profile enough that it rarely has much of one. TfD and CfD are much more inside baseball, and their closing processes can be quite complex, so it's normal for them to have more of a backlog. Personally, I think this is one of the functions of our admin shortage, and I think most editors would agree with me. But the metaphor of adminship as a mop is more than just a quirky little joke; since becoming an admin, a great majority of my time on Wikipedia has been spent on such cleanup tasks. It's not for everyone. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's incorrect position. Article needs for rename procedure. Please revert this move and go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Advisor^{speak en-2} 17:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not revert, as there was nothing wrong with the move. However, since there was no participation besides the nomination, it would not be inappropriate for you to start a new RM there, with evidence that the old name was better. If anyone complains about you starting a new RM so soon, I'll back you up. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD. Judging from the delete log you are online now, therefor: I thought you might want to have a look at Richard Nevell (WMUK)'s talk page history. There is a certain connection between all those posts today and the edit patterns of the users. Many of the accounts are created today. All edit in articles about female scientists. Sophia Jex-Blake and Mill Hill East are two string I have seen several times on their user pages. The edits in articles are a bit above my level, i.e. to the common patroller could look legit. Please forgive me if my give unfounded cause to concern here. Best, Sam 🎤 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Looking over the ANI thread about this, it looks like it's been resolved. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How many months must I start a discussion again? --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends. If you have a different proposal, I'd say go ahead right now. Not everyone would agree with me on that, but this isn't the sort of article that has been the source of much name-warring, so I'm guessing those people won't notice. I wouldn't even particularly be upset if you tried the same request again, but this time with evidence. Please don't take this as a criticism, but you didn't really make any arguments in favor of the move. When it came to weigh arguments at the close, I just had two editors proposing alternatives, one against a move at all, after about two and a half weeks of listing. It wasn't much to go by. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at that earlier - the only editor comments have been "I'm not sure" and "I think I'll split the article instead", so I wasn't convinced there was a meaningful consensus. If you support the move, it'd be useful if you left a comment there saying so. But sure, I'll take a look at moving the article and rewriting it for context when I've got a moment to do it properly. --McGeddon (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's hardly a rousing consensus, but there were no clear-cut objections to the move, and since we'll still have one article rather than two, I don't think the objections to the split are especially relevant. So I'll go ahead and move it. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've carried out the move, added a defaultsort, and added a few person-related categories. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've rewritten it to be about Caruana rather than his visions. --McGeddon (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD: Please see the new discussions I have started at Talk:Holocaust#Follow-up discussion about a hasty decision. Feel free to add your comments over there before we go any further. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD. I was looking through some old things, and realized that in this RFD last month I forgot to add "Homeless veteran". I was wondering if you, as the closing admin there, would be willing to invoke WP:NOTBURO and delete that redirect as well, without my having to RFD it too. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In reading your thoughts at the AFD, I believe User:HudsonBreeze's request on my talk page is reasonable. Thought it prudent to ping you and share his request that it be moved to User:HudsonBreeze/Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. A reasonable request. --BDD (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a good evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm contacting you because you're an uninvolved admin. There was a discussion going at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, and it has since stopped as the discussion moved to WP:AN. I read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing but the way forward still isn't entirely clear - in your professional opinion, do you think I should open a closure request at the appropriate noticeboard? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Professional? Where's my check? Seriously though, I was going to say that a close would be appropriate at this time, with the editor in question not participating in the discussion. Then I noticed he was indefinitely blocked yesterday. Normally I wouldn't feel comfortable closing an RFCU due to my lack of experience in this area, but at this time, it's more of a procedural close. I'll see to it. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:45, 28 July 2013 (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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15