User talk:BDD/Archive 17

Pearlasia Gamboa

Thank you for your note. It was quite surprising: I was unaware that I had closed it! I remember planning to close the discussion, deleting some while not-deleting others, but I got distracted, and when I returned, I was under the impression that I hadn't started the closing process. As far as I can tell, I completely forgot that I'd done anything, so I just left it for someone else to handle. I've unclosed it, so anyone can handle it, but I'll get it taken care of if someone else doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted some and kept the rest. I've sent the following message to everyone who voted in the discussion. Last month, you participated in a deletion discussion for several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fusion music

Hello. I was thinking of redirecting "Fusion music" (now a deleted page) and "Fusion (music)" to the most logical category page Fusion music genres. Do you think this makes sense"? Wolfdog (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't create a cross-namespace redirect if there was an alternative. How about redirecting to Music genre#Fusion and tagging with {{R to section}} and {{R with possibilities}}? --BDD (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect

{{Category redirect}} adds categories with members to a tracking category. A bot then moves these members to the target category: this is useful functionality as future uses of that category will be resolved without the editor having to worry about the detail, or hunt down the correct category name (indeed often a red-linked category with the"obvious" name will have several members).

In this case moving an article from Category:People from Salem to Category:People from Salem, Tamil Nadu automatically is a bad idea.

We need a separate mechanism, maybe {{Category disambiguate}} which flags up items that need their content's categories disambiguating (arguably it's a type of diffusion from non-semantic parent categories).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

Ah, I see. I knew about that mechanism, but it hadn't occurred to me that disrupting it might be a good idea. I think in general it's not, that it would be like emptying a category before proposing it for deletion. In this case, the redirect is almost certain to be deleted, and you're right, we probably don't want anything tagged with "People from Salem" being moved there automatically. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War move discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Watch out

14 Feb hasn't run its official course yet (I done the same thing two or three times before, it's easy to do that by mistake). Thank you for your closes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it customary to wait until a day has ended at TfD? I thought the proper etiquette was always just to wait 168 hours (7 x 24) since the nomination. In most cases, no one seems to mind as long as the closing day is 7 days beyond the nomination day, even if the times don't quite sync up. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone will mind, and the 168 hours interpretations seems reasonably valid, but - since I've done the same thing more than once by mistake in the past - I was just letting you know you were working from the non "old" days, in case you didn't notice. The convention is to wait until the day is up (and the bot moves the day to old), but I don't really object to ignoring convention when it's no big deal anyway. When I did close discussions on a day early, I didn't undo them, by the way, and I haven't heard any complaints. I can't imagine there will be any especially with the non-controversial outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to know; I'll keep that in mind when I venture over to TfD. Since I rule RfD with an iron fist, whatever I say there goes. That's... about 50% a joke. I'm always hoping for more admins to become regulars there. Have you checked out our backlog lately? It's not nearly as bad as it has been in recent memory, and RfD offers stimulating discussion and the opportunity for finding articles that need to be written. And discussions often get backlogged just because I participate in them, and thus don't close them. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

He, make you a deal. I do a couple of RfD's daily, you do a couple of TfD's daily, since recently I've become "the TfD admin", and I really don't like that for more than one reason. I'll see if I can do some RfD's tomorrow. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can take a crack at that. My main concern is that I really am not knowledgeable when it comes to merging templates, and I know that's a common enough outcome. I think I know regular merging better than most Wikipedians, but template merging is sort of a different animal, isn't it? One convenient thing about RfD is that the outcomes are almost never difficult to carry out technically. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

TfD's that closed are merge are rarely enacted by the closing admin, we have WP:TFD/H for that (which is also heavily backlogged, but that's a different issue). In my opinion, the only tricky part with closing TfD's, is because quite often there are few participants, getting a feel when there is rough consensus to delete, as nobody really objects, or that the discussion hasn't shown consensus yet and should be relisted. Most TfD's are actually pretty easy to close, but not everything always happens in harmony - which makes it all the more important that it's not a one-admin-show. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's very good to know. Generally, I like to be able to follow through myself, but I suppose moving things along is helpful even if I don't complete the whole thing. I'll make sure to make use of that. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well somehow dunno why my eyes hooked on this thread and I welcome the swapping idea. I'd welcome BDD in the TfD closers pool (very hot and steaming and bubbling right now!). Now I must think about how to make this a 100% or 0% joke experience. Welcome, I like editors who can think independently. I could learn. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the RfD procedure for a redirect that has content in its history? Does RfD have mandate over that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, it doesn't matter how much history a redirect has. That will usually only matter if there's a merge involved and that history needs to be preserved. Most RfD participants will glance at a redirect's history, which is conveniently linked in a nomination, so they'll take that into account when they vote. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

TfD hiccup?

You just have closed the deletion of Template:InChI (thanks; no issues by me the nom). However, I could not reach the relevant TfD section (eg, not via the editsummary link you added; try recreate/open) [1]. For our convenience: this is minor, and don't spend much time on it (I can do without the link). This is just for future mishaps. Or is it my lack of patience ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Must be a quirk of the canned deletion summaries at TfD. I removed that day from the listing, which is why the link didn't work, though a bot would've done this soon anyway. I think you already know, but the link is here. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The delete link on the TfD would have filled in the correct summary automatically if you were navigation from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 10 rather than Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. If you click the link from the page when you come back from the close edit, it'll be on the "right" page for the link to be correct. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, strange. I'll have to remember that. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christ myth theory

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christ myth theory. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone! Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Manuel Santillan

Hi, I found this discussion about the origin of the name. I think the concept predates the Fabulosos Cadillacs, as illustrated by this 1905 cartoon. Thanks for you time --Fiestoforo (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like "San Tillán" there, and I can't find a reference to anyone by that name on this or the Spanish Wikipedia. Or is it supposed to be a satirical rendering of Santillán, juxtaposed with an image of a martyred saint. As you may have seen, someone on the Spanish Wikipedia said the character from the songs was fictional. But maybe he's more of a folkloric figure? We certainly have gaps in the encyclopedia, but I'd expect to see some trace of it if that were the case. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

hi I'm crusader100 my name is Neil price you edited my page thank you would like to expand it if ok my 2 uefa cup games do not appear would like them too if poss also in the Managment section I achieved an Ismithian div 1 promotion in 1994 ? Also got to1st end FA cup in 1994-5 losing to Swansea 2-0 with Walton and Hersham fc also in 1995-6 again reached round 1 losing to Cardiff City with Hendon Fc also won Ismithian 2 with Hemel hempstead Fc in 99-2000 with 110 points could this be put in also worked for 8 years on bbc radio doing live commentary for Watford Fc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusader100 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 February 2015

Hi Crusader100. I'm looking at Neil Price (footballer), and it looks like the UEFA Cup matches are mentioned ("At Watford he played two games in Watford's first (and as of 2012 only) season in the UEFA Cup..."). There's also mention of your time with BBC Radio. I can try to help mention some of those other things. Generally, we wouldn't say how many points a club got in a season, as that's a bit overly detailed. An exception would be if it were record-breaking—say, a high for the club or the league. Especially for living people, we do need reliable sources in articles. If you can link me to any online sources, I'll see what I can about incorporating them. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice request on RM issue

Hi BDD

Just wondering, if you have a spare moment, if you could take a look at Talk:Brian Kelly (U.S. soccer player), where I closed an RM, and the message left to me at User talk:Amakuru#Brian Kelly (U.S. soccer player)? According to me I read a fairly clear consensus that the move was desired, and that the majority favoured the move I closed it as. The user who wrote on my talk page is suggesting that I should give more weight to contributors who participate on WP:FOOTBALL, which I personally don't agree with - WikiProjects serve a very useful function, but they don't dictate policy. Anyway, let me know any thoughts you have on the matter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I have several thoughts on this one. First of all, the suggestion that anyone's votes should be weighted higher due to their participation in a WikiProject is rubbish. I also categorically reject the suggestion that this Brian Kelly is the only soccer player by that name. A footballer and a soccer player are the same thing. WP:ENGVAR is fine, but we do and should disambiguate based on how readers are actually going to search. However, it does seem that there is a standard disambiguator that should've been used in this case—(American soccer). I understand your desire to default to the initially proposed title, but there also doesn't seem to be a good reason to deviate from naming conventions. Also, "U.S." isn't often used as an adjective in disambiguators for persons. Brian Kelly (American soccer player) might make more sense, but if Brian Kelly (American soccer) distinguishes him just as well (and I think it does), WP:PRECISE really seals it for me. Hope some of this is helpful. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your help and advice on this. I put a feeler out on the talk page, which got enough agreement, and it is now moved to Brian Kelly (American soccer). This seems a good outcome. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Glad we were able to sort this out. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Self blocking requests

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comments and a link to your requirements page, if any. I hope I did not err in sort of reviving that page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Help me. Block me.

I need help. I am on wikibreak as my important exams for academic part are going on. And as per Wikipedia; school is more important than itself: but I am helpless. I can't stop myself from clicking Edit! And I guess I must not be editing much till 23rd March, when exams would finish. But I find myself editing it more and more! I tried to do WikiBreak Enforcer as suggested by Yunshui. But i guess it didn't work.
Please block me from editing or even logging till 23 March, 2015 8:00 A.M. (UTC)
aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 16:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done As you wish. Good luck with your exams. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

El León

You didn't get any other thoughts as requested on the redirects at Talk:Leon (Japanese wrestler), but I've done the move and agree with you on the redirects. Andrewa (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings 2

I believe that the discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect resulted in a clear consensus to delete the redirect as no reasonably acceptable argument was presented for keeping it.

Despite a number of strong arguments for deleting the redirect, and no valid arguments for keeping it, you determined the outcome of the debate to be "no consensus." Your closing statement failed to provide an explanation of why your analysis of "the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of [the] issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy," led you to conclude no consensus was achieved.

In light of the above, as well as your having been heavily WP:INVOLVED in the matter under discussion prior to enacting your recent closure of the latest in a series of related discussions, as evidenced by your participation in the discussion you closed,[2] your closure of the previous discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect,[3] and your participation in the deletion review of that closure,[4] I'd like to ask you to undo your closure thus allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle the matter. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you do. The diff you linked to is a general comment about the applicability to AADD to RfD. I have only been involved with this matter as an administrator, not as an advocate for one action or another. I strongly, strongly advise you to just drop this and find better uses of your time. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The above comment, which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of WP:INVOLVED, doesn't even begin to address most of the concerns I have raised. Am I to understand that, having read and considered my original comment, you refuse to undo your closure? Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. "Purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias" sounds pretty clear to me. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of banjo players

I agree that the list is not limited to American's and I'm not trying to make it geocentric, so wouldn't that mean the addition of Categories, not removal? That's why I'm confused by your edit, how is lessening its exposure making it more diverse? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories can increase an article's exposure, but that's not really a good reason to add categories that don't fit. We wouldn't put Law enforcement in the category Category:Law enforcement in the United States, for example. Those categories would be appropriate for an article like List of American banjo players, but not for a global list. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, so now what? Are there International categories that its missing? How do the Categories that you removed "not fit"? Isn't the entire list composed of people that meet the criteria for the Categories you removed? Maybe there's some aspect of Category policy that I don't appreciate, but I'm still trying to understand the logic behind your edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the remaining two categories cover it completely and adequately. A list of banjo players generally matches a category for banjoists, and is one list of musicians by instrument. The topic isn't particular to any geographic area by nature. It just doesn't make sense to have a list of people that includes, say, John Lennon, in categories for American people. And most of those categories are for individuals anyway. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Plowback retained earnings 2

The purpose of this message is to inform you that your recent closure of a discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect is currently undergoing a review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Donets basin move

Thanks a lot for addressing my expressed concerns. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

nac closes etc

Sorry if I cocked it up. My wife is very ill, well, just a cold but refused to take anything for it, as if we didn't have stacks of it in the house. So going through a bit of aa tough time. I hope you'll be pleased to know she has a new job and will be flying off to Italy in april, but i have to make sure she is well enough for that and also do the house repairs etc.

I do cock it up sometimes, I am sorry about that, but try my best. (And yes, it is half past one in the morning my time.) Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry to hear that, though I am indeed glad to hear about her new job. Are you a Terry Pratchett fan? I've sort of pictured you like him because you seem to be British and older than me. Probably not that old, I suppose (not that there's anything wrong with that). His death brought my own wife to tears, I'm afraid. --BDD (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I am up all hours, looking after her. The Terry Pratchett death is probably big news, I never liked his work but it will be all over the papers. I respect him and his work with discworld etc to bring science fiction to a wider audience, I am just better with Arthur C. Clarke he just never appealed to me, could never get on with him, but a fantastic author and well deserved fame, just I could never manage how he rambled on.... As if I don't! I hope I ramble on for the good of Wikipedia.

There was a nice ceremony at St Paul's Cathedral with Her Maj in attendance to honour our glorious dead, coming back from Afghanistan. I seem to have been doing a lot of that lately. Two more to do this week. As you get older people tend to die on you more frequently, it seems.

I closed a couple tonight but as they were snowballing. Thryduulf is better at this than I am, and good to seem him back (he was away too long). I am good at doing the gnoming but perhaps not so good at the decisions, so sorry for getting it wrong.

I am as always your humble servant. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I already got her a lovely new laptop, well second hand, we dol everything second hand, but kinda new for us. Works a treat witjjh Windows Something Or Other on it. New samsonite suitcase and she is fit to fly. I think she and I both are a bit stressed out about it. We'll be all right, we did manage to put the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 together, and we'll do it again. But my first duty is to my wife. Says so on my certificate. 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thanks for listing the other redirect. hopefully, we can get more people to chime in on the discussion... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

University of Blacksburg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect University of Blacksburg. Since you had some involvement with the University of Blacksburg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kamek98 at AN/I

As you closed Kamek98's recent move review, you may be interested in commenting at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kamek98's refusal to accept consensus. Deadbeef 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I don't really have anything to add at this time, but feel free to ping or otherwise notify me if I can be of help. It looks like you've summarized the situation adequately. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Country party

Neatly done. I suggest moving the draft to "Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)" and putting a dab hat on the current redirect target, then getting a bot to pipe the existing links tot he redirect, and finally placing a dab there linking to both. Or ignore me, I guess, and do something else, but that's my reading of the RFD discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Well, it's resolved one way or another. We'll see if it survives AfD again; I expect it to make another trip. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly be nominating it, even just on procedural grounds. How on earth is this supposed to be OK? It was deleted by very solid consensus at AfD; that doesn't mean you can just recreate it whenever you feel like it. Frickeg (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI. Frickeg (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

About those {{Rfd2}} edits...

I just realized that I might have broken the functionality to contain the proper date in the edit notice than it was before. I just tested trying to click the "keep" link on an entry created with my edits, and found that if the link is clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MONTH DD, the edit notice will display "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#REDIRECT closed..." instead of including the date. I know of an editor who may be able to resolve this with a direct link to the subpage (as they had with {{RMassist}}); I'm going to see if they can do the same for {{Rfd2}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Mostly thanks to Wbm1058's edits in the template's sandbox and some minor appearance tweaks done by me, this concern has been addressed and resolved with this edit. The "keep/retarget/delete" links will not appear unless they are viewed directly from the daily subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Station stuff

Since you participated in the RM discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February_2015, you may have thoughts worth commenting on at the related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, including especially the survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Simpler questions / concise survey. If so, please comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

BDD, your failure to admit that the pylon thing is a complete red herring, and your consequent failure to help fix the problem, is putting at risk that guideline that you care about. Why not help fix the mess you caused? Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Block

Period of Entrance exams. Please block me aGain. Till 24th May, 2015
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Close

You just did one. Thx for doing it. Now I'm going to read it. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A drive by THANK YOU...

I can relate to what you must have gone through to reach your decision regarding COIducks, and wanted to say thank you for the time you invested. Your explanation for the close couldn't have been more eloquently stated. Atsme☯^Consult 18:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate you saying so. The discussion was so contentious I thought I'd be painting a target on myself by closing it. I hope this gives everyone a good idea of how to tackle the issue going forward. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote the essay. Now it is good. See WP:Advocacyquacks. Do you have any suggestions to get more input on the rewrite? QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No - you simply removed my name and edited MY essay, and you need to remove it because it is under discussion in my SandBox. What you did is plagiarize my work, and removed my name from it while we were in the process of modifying it. This is a travesty!! Atsme☯^Consult 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

PS - this is where our discussion is still taking place. User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery 12:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

Sorry about forgetting my sig. I actually started a discussion at VP Tech the other day re: adding a sig reminder similar to the edit summary reminder before the save. Anyway, FYI - Zad68 had already deleted the plagiarized essay. Atsme☯^Consult 14:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Essay - another turn of the screw

I pinged you here about Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for looking into this. i've said this elsewhere but should be deleted per G4, like Quackguru's was, per this. I won't tag it, but that is what i think should happen. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

BDD, please read my comments here User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery#relaunch_of_essay regarding Jytdog's request because I believe they demonstrate the reason for his urgency to delete my work. The current essay is not a relaunch of the deleted essay, which appears to be the strategy Jytdog has assumed to pull wool. Read the essay and you will see that it actually compliments and further recommends civility than it does anything else. Perhaps that is why there is such opposition to this essay? One would think if new users could read an essay that suggests proper ways to behave, it would avoid disruptions that lead to blocks and bans - or does civility defeat an underlying strategy?? That would seem rather bizarre, but there has not been one valid argument given for a speedy delete. Also notice how there were no collaborative attempts - just a request for speedy delete as the result of one editor's dislike of the essay. I believe after you read my comments at the TP discussion you'll understand why Jytdog's behavior has become overly authoritative where it shouldn't be, and is creating quite a bit of unrest among quite a few editors. Thank you kindly in advance for your careful consideration. Atsme☯^Consult 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

atsme the conspiracy theorizing is really going too far. you are outside consensus at Griffin and have been for four months now; your essay was so far out of consensus that its deletion was beyond a doubt. relaunching the cosmetically-retouched essay was a very bad idea. There is a common element in all three of those things. You being outside consensus. Please don't be so defiant of the community, atsme. and please don't blame me for your being there. and it is not like i am following you around. i've been involved in health-topics for a long time, and that is how i got involved in the griffin thing. i have been involved in working on COI issues here for a long time; you stepped into that quite recently. we have intersected in two places, and that is it. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick note, Jytdog - I realize the original essay struck a nerve with several COI editors, most of whom are respected professionals, others who may or may not be considered part of the skeptic movement, the latter of whom have made similar mistakes to mine regarding throwing out the baby out with the bath water. That wasn't my intent rather it was an oversight I regret and have since addressed. My essay originally focused on bad behavior through a narrow lens which inadvertently bled over to straightforward GF editors who have COI declarations. That isn't the case anymore. As for your mention of Griffin, those are issues for discussion at another time and are irrelevant to the discussion now. With all due respect, I have tenderloin steaks on the grill. (Texas equivalent to bigger fish to fry).

BDD, I read your wise suggestion to Userfy the essay [5], and we are considering such a proposal. I am also of the belief that the issues raised in my essay are real and of growing concern as evidenced on the TP of Jimmy Wales. My essay addresses civility issues which is essential in maintaining the peace by nipping potential problems in the bud. What I can't understand is why any editor would object to it. Deleting my essay from mainspace is not going to make the core problems go away. I ask you to please stop and think about the alternatives the opposition has placed on the table. It speaks volumes. Your input is greatly appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 23:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I have been listening to you (well reading you) for four months now. You have written a lot. Your characterization of why the essay was deleted, is wrong. The reason why your characterization is wrong, and why both of versions of the essay were/are wrong, and for what is going on at Griffin, are all the same -- you do not understand how to listen to consensus and you will not yield to it. The essays express your deep suspicion of the community, when it goes against you. That is why you cannot understand it - you don't hear it. It is hard to watch you be so obdurate. And no, deleting the essay from mainspace won't help you learn to listen and trust the community, but will stop the distrust from being broadcast. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh - Ok, Jytdog - you just had to keep pushing so let's take a quick look at who doesn't listen to RfC consensus which happened to support my position, and who is actually the one responsible for creating suspicion. It certainly isn't me, and the fact that you keep casting aspersions without providing one diff should result in remedial action because your unwarranted, unsupported allegations are quite tiresome.

Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Admin removes noncompliant contentious material
• Jytdog accuses admin of edit warring after his determination of consensus - which happened to support my concerns.
• Jytdog's TP discussion re: close
• Jytdog goes forum shopping at AN, looking for certain qualities in a closer
• Do I really need to keep providing these diffs, Jytdog? You really need to change your direction and stop being accusatory when you are standing on a potential sink hole. Atsme☯^Consult 23:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to go into the history of Griffin with you here. You are choosing a path away from consensus, and hardening your resolve to go there. That's your choice. It is a destructive attitude and one that your essays express as well. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I see, but it was ok for you to bring up the history of Griffin when it suited you. Like always, Jytdog, you keep pushing and pushing, and don't know when to drop the stick. There's a tropical breeze whispering through the palm fronds while the soothing sounds of the ocean lap against the rock wall that separates my home from the ocean - it's telling me to say goodnight all. Atsme☯^Consult 03:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice, please

My essay was speedy deleted despite the change in focus, different title, demonstrated differences, etc. I don't feel it was a fair action considering the essay was still under discussion regarding moving it to Userfy. I think it is the best alternative, but now that it has been speedy deleted, I have lost access to the essay and the TP. I have requested a full review. In the interim, can I Userfy the essay? Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. I hope you don't feel I've been ignoring this issue. I'm trying to be deliberate and keep my distance to some degree. I purposely left it for other admins to consider the speedy deletion, and I'd rather yield similarly in the ongoing deletion review. Let's talk about the way forward. You brought up userfication: how do you see User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery versus the most recently deleted essay? I see another editor has sort of picked up the former, so I'm not sure to what extent that reflects your wants. I do think your opponents* in this matter have made some good points about what a new essay should look like—two main points have caught my eye. First, you're talking about ducks in a way that deviates somewhat from the established usage of that term on Wikipedia. Especially if the essay remains in userspace, that might not be a huge problem, because you're free to describe the problem as you wish, but this terminology seems to be confusing some editors.

Second, and more important IMO, is the necessity of depersonalizing the issue. I don't think there's any need to specifically mention MEDRS or medical/pharmaceutical subjects. No doubt there are COI/advocacy editors on these subjects, but is this demonstrably more a problem there than any other? Say, politics or business? I'm not so sure. Focusing on one subject area seems provocative, just judging by the sort of responses I saw at the MfD. Personally, I think it's strange that Wikipedia's treatment of medical subjects diverges so differently from usual practice. WP:MEDRS and MOS:MED's title recommendations are good examples of this. In some ways, medical subjects are like this neo-Nupedia. I'm sort of going off on a tangent here; I just want you to know that I'm sympathetic to the idea that medical articles may merit special attention. I just think that's doing more harm than good when it comes to the essay.

*I sort of hate to use battleground-type terminology here, but to be honest, this really is a conflict with two sides. I hope I don't come across as equivocating. I see some good points on both sides, and I hope I can nudge everyone towards agreement of some sort. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, BDD. Silly me, I forgot to save the deleted new essay and its TP which included columns in a table that demonstrated stark differences in yellow highlighted text. I have requested a text copy of both from Stifle and would appreciate anything you could do to expedite those copies while I have time to work on it. Almost all of the issues that were brought up as GF criticisms in the original essay discussion were removed or modified beyond recognition of how it appeared in the old essay. IOW, the new essay took on an entirely new focus, and wasn't at all the same as the old. The new essay discussed overzealous COI editing and aggressive advocacies (or it could be vice versa). Forgive me because I am reciting from memory which is a major chore in itself. The new essay had a new title - Advocacy and COI ducks - which took a much different and broader approach than the original COIducks as it related to medical topics, behavioral issues, identification, steps to take and actually focused on a more neutral and broader area of topics including industry, corporate, and the like - both paid and unpaid. More emphasis was placed on identifying problematic editing, and less on MEDRS except for the fact it gave more support of the process and MEDRS guidelines. The new essay went much further in the behavior issues in a step by step manner with more emphasis on self-analysis, a stand down posture, and advice to not jump to conclusions, etc. It emphasized AGF steps leading to resolve if the previous steps didn't give desired results. It supports (and emphasizes) self-analysis, TP discussion, third opinion, identifying the behavior to know which direction to take for DR, RfC, AN-I or COIN in the case of suspected paid advocacy, and as a last resort in the case of highly elevated disputes the possibility of ARBCOM, including a few pros and cons. If I could get that essay back and the tables on the TP, I will Userfy it and continue the discussions to give it the last ounce of polish. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. It is greatly appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 15:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Stifle was going to provide you with a copy. Let me know if there are any problems on that front. It may also be appropriate to temporarily restore the page while it's at DRV, in which case you'd also get to look it over for anything you want to save. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If it can be restored (with TP) long enough for me to copy it from edit view, that would be much better. I thought what I'd do is Userfy and get collaborative input before I did anything else. Will I be allowed to do that? Atsme☯^Consult 16:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think so. Make this intent clear at DRV, and I know if I were the closer there I'd honor the request. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Atsme☯^Consult 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bailey Pickett AfD

I've really only recently discovered that Bailey Pickett was redirected after this discussion and was planning to take it to DRV, but the instructions say to first discuss with the AfD closer. The problem is, I can understand your close. However, a previous AfD, attended by 7 editors had closed as keep less than a month previously, and it seem strange that the votes of only 2 editors could overturn a stronger consensus only a month later. While the previous AfD had run for 20 days, the second AfD only ran for 6. Given all this, the 2nd AfD close doesn't seem sound, especially since the second nomination seemed WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while, if you want to give it another try as an article. I must've been aware of the first AfD, but since the article as I saw it only had one source, that being the actress's own website, I probably found the arguments against persuasive. Regardless, it's been enough time that I won't object to reversing the redirection. Just be willing to improve the article, of course, and accept the judgment of a third nomination if it comes. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dung beetles in Australia

I disagree with your reasoning for rejecting my redirect request for Dung beetles in Australia. The original study may have concluded in 1985, but the article itself covers material after that period on the results of having dung beetles in Australia. (Australian_Dung_Beetle_Project#Further_dung_beetle_research) How do I resubmit the redirect request?--110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I would advise against that. The section you pointed out to me still focuses on the project. I understand and appreciate your desire to see coverage of this topic, but this isn't the way to do it. If you're knowledgeable about the subject, perhaps you could start an article of your own? Let me know if I can help you with that. --BDD (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice, please 2

It appears to me those who harbor what they claim are concerns over big pharma shills have inadvertently or deliberately created the perfect defense for big pharma. Keeping my essay from going into mainspace is censorship and I cannot see anything in the essay or in the criticisms by two editors on the opposition side that justify it. The criticisms are demanding a whitewashing of anything and everything that presents a challenge to big pharma advocacy. If advocates of big pharma are allowed to get their way because of their sheer numbers on WP, what is to stop other industries from doing the same? Just ask yourself why the focus now is only on big pharma as evidenced in the discussions User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks and not on any other overly aggressive zealots, industry advocates, political advocates, religious advocates. The essay speaks directly to ALL advocacies, not just big pharma. It appears to me big pharma has ventured into the wool pulling business because I've seen a lot of it being applied to eyewear.

See the quote box on WP:NPOV that states, This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged... My work does not focus on big pharma, science, medical, etc. but there are advocates trying to make it appear that way as one editor recently demonstrated in a long diatribe, no matter how many times the essay says to assume good faith, it will not be acceptable as a mainspace essay. and There is an additional problem with the list of these behaviours, and that is that they are the same as the pharma shill gambit. While you have removed some items, this gambit is the heart of the essay because those are the behaviours identified. Comparing the essay from the linked site: and I realize that this essay uses different words than the ones at the linked site, but the sentiments are the same. [6] The sentiments are the same because I drew the sentiment from WP:PAG and related published essays, including but not limited to WP:Tag team, WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Civility, WP:Advocacy, WP:Game, Wikipedia:POV_railroad and the like. There has been constructive criticism of the essay which I've addressed but what is happening now is an attempt to force an entirely different approach using their POV, not mine or the views of those who support the essay for all the right reasons: to supplement behavioral issues associated with advocacy editing. There are no violations of policy in my essay much less anything that speaks against what Wikipedia is not. It represents exactly what an essay is supposed to represent and the attacks against it are unwarranted.

The WP essay about WP:Essays states:

• Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Essays typically contain the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Unlike policies and guidelines, usually no formal attempt to judge the community's support for the essay's content has been made. <---it is appears the negative focus on my essay may actually stem from a big pharma advocacy.
• It is important to keep in mind that like anything else on Wikipedia, essays are not owned by anyone, including their creator. Nothing is in stone. However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other. <---An excellent idea. Why haven't those who oppose my essay created their own?

With regards to the few that have been deleted, it states:

The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space. These include:

• Writings that have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever. The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice) and not any unrelated outside causes. <--- My essay has a direct relationship to WP but the opposers do not.
• Writings that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not.<---my essay contains no personal attacks, etc. In fact it emphasizes against such behavior.
• Writings that contradict or subvert policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays. <---my essay encourages AGF, encourages discussion on TP, supports established PAGs, supports and encourages consensus through RfCs, supports civility and stand down behavior, emphasizes the proper steps to take to reach consensus, DR, right on up to ARBCOM.

The criticisms against it are unwarranted, misleading and POV based on what appears to be a POV advocacy. I am actually following the steps outlined in the essay by asking your advice. I think further investigation is warranted into the relentless criticisms and comments that have been made in order to censor my essay and prevent it from going into mainspace. I have bent over backwards to accommodate GF suggestions but I will not change the focus of the essay because of big pharma concerns. Please advise. Atsme☯^Consult 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I need to give this further consideration. Is your concern "big pharma" or advocacy on Wikipedia? As I've said before, I think your essay should be subject-neutral. If there really are secret agents of pharmaceutical companies that would fight commonsense, general advice, they'll be judged accordingly. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The essay's focus is general advocacy on Wikipedia. One of the concerns raised during the initial MfD was that that the identified advocacy behaviours was the pharma shill gambit. I compared actions associated with the gambit with the advocacy behaviours listed in the essay and found them to be substantially similar. The pharma shill gambit is used by more than just anti-pharma people; the same tactics are used in other areas and so the gambit is also known as a shill gambit. My concerns are not that of big pharma but of anti-pharma editors using this essay against good-faith editors.

I might be completely wrong that only advocates exhibit those behaviours and that those are the behaviours that advocates exhibit. If so, I invite editors to show me diffs and investigations that prove it. If I'm shown wrong I'll gladly admit it. Ca2james (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BDD, Ca2james pretty well summed it up. The essay's focus is advocacy and the sections are based primarily on PAGs. Unfortunately, the big pharma question keeps showing up as the primary reason my essay has been opposed by some editors as evidenced in the diff I provided in the 2nd para of my OP. I actually did accommodate almost all of the original criticisms when I wrote the 2nd essay but it was speedy deleted, so I went back to the drawing board and peeled the onion to its core. I'm on the 3rd essay, and still getting the same criticism. It's the head of the hydra. I don't understand why because it doesn't make any sense. If the claim is that only big pharma shills exhibit advocacy behavior that claim demonstrates a very narrow focus and is not representative of the essay. In retrospect, WP:PAGs weren't written based on vapor claims. We all know the issues exist and they aren't all big pharma based, so why is that argument used as the basis for criticism of my essay? It is nothing short of disruptive. The fact that I have to debate the same issue over and over again in order to dispel the myth is tiresome, not to mention unproductive. Atsme☯^Consult 22:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

the 3rd attempt is substantially the same as the first two. while new material has been added, the overall structure is the same; and the content that was the most pernicious (assume bad faith, view consensus and conspiracy) remains in the essay. the only reason pharma/biotech keeps coming up is because there is still content specific to those industries in the essay, which is bizarre and grows directly out of atsme's experience at the griffin article. there is no other reason for it to be there; nobody outside this group of alt-med advocates thinks big pharma has an outsize influence on WP; experienced people find most COI in articles about small companies, BLPs, and products outside of biotech. ironically, one of the places where advovacy is strongest, is by alt-med advocates. from that it is quite clear why there is so much ABF/conspiracy theorizing in the essay. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the problem is that although you have added a lot to the essay, at its core it's the same. The second essay was substantially the same as the first - that's why it was speedy deleted and why the deletion review will endorse the delete. I know that you disagree with that conclusion but the evidence and consensus is against you. The third essay has been changed; lots has been added and other bits have been tweaked. However, no amount of telling the reader to assume good faith can overcome an underlying assumption of bad faith and the conspiracy theories inherent in those advocacy behaviours. Why not check with editors at COIN to get help identifying advocacy behaviours and determining how to differentiate advocates from editors upholding MEDRS/RS instead of creating the list on your own? Ca2james (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, Ca2james - you haven't provided one statement that demonstrates my essay encourages "assume bad faith" or "conspiracy". Your repeated allegations have become disruptive which is why I am asking BDD for help. I've already addressed your suggestions and explained repeatedly why your argument does not hold true, yet you keep repeating yourselves and in doing so actually contradict your own statements. Stop already. Read WP:IDHT. There is nothing in my essay that contradicts or disputes WP:PAG, in fact quite the opposite is true. Read Wikipedia essays which addresses opposing viewpoints like yours: However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other. If you get that done, I will link to your essay. Atsme☯^Consult 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

see my comments on the essay's talk page - i did my best to explain there. and you didn't address what i said about legacy content, instead you talked about the new content you added (I also said that on the essay talk page). Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? I didn't provide any statements that demonstrate that the essay assumes bad faith? That was what this whole edit was about. I guess you disagree with what I wrote or didn't find my evidence compelling but that doesn't mean that I provided no statements.

Is it your plan to put this essay back in mainspace, or are you keeping it in userspace? Ca2james (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that no one wants to appear disruptive to the editing process or to an editor, therefore the guidelines should be invoked as this essay drama has gone on far too long.

When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view

My take is that people who are in opposition to the essay (as per RfD iVotes) should at this point heed the advice above and leave Atsme to write her essay in peace, seriously. petrarchan47คุก 01:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, while you're all welcome to tell me things about this matter on my talk page, please don't discuss it among yourselves here. Atsme, let me say more simply what I was getting at: if you leave "big pharma" out of the essay, any critics railing about that are going to look silly. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

- it was removed a while back. The essay looks mahvelous now, simply mahvelous. One of the essay's biggest critics actually collaborated and the improvements are quite notable. Atsme☯^Consult 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oddish

(WP:RFD#Oddish) If you are oddish I think I am odder. What are the Odds on that one? Nice call. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No no, I was saying I was withdrawn and refined. I won't deny that you're odder! --BDD (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BS Monopoly link

Hi BDD, I just wanted to mention that I've boldly re-redirected BS Monopoly to Monopoly (video games) as this seems to me to be a better target. I mentioned as much in the RfD and although the redirect you made (i.e. to List of Satellaview broadcasts#Broadcast game list) was also mentioned in the RfD, it wasn't an unopposed suggestion like the proposal to redirect to Monopoly (video games). Let me know if I've made a mess of things and we can discuss it further. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RM 5

Could you have a look at this RM or perhaps close it? I was thinking to close it myself. However, I am reluctant to do anything here as a. some people never like an Indian closing Pakistani discussion, b. as I am an Indian and Bengali some people may think that I am partially involved. Could you please close this one according to your own judgement --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I probably won't close that, but I think it would be fine for you to close as an Indian. It's really more about a broader Wikipedia question (plural or singular form for ethnic groups) than it is about Indian or Pakistani issues. --BDD (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beepi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beepi. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Acagastya

Hi BDD - just a courtesy note to let you know I've unblocked this user. They had requested a block to help keep them off Wikipedia so thye could study, but since that clearly isn't working as intended, I've re-enabled their access. All the best, Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Relistings

I am sorry, but WP:RELIST does not say that only administrators can relist entries. In fact, at one point, it says “Users relisting a debate”, so I naturally assumed that I could do it. Furthermore, the guideline advises for a relisting rationale when it is the third or fourth relisting, while I presented one even though it was only the first relisting. It is true that I forgot to remove it from the original date though. Have a nice day and sorry for any inconvenience.--The Theosophist (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see what happened. Since you had left parallel listings, when I came across the later one, I thought you had reverted my close and then relisted. Perhaps you can see why I was so outraged then. But I should've looked into the matter further before assuming bad faith. Be more careful in the future—that goes for you and me, perhaps more so for me. I'll modify the closing statement to reflect my misunderstanding. I apologize. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I fully understand your wrath. And I will certainly never forget again in the future to remove the old entry when relisting it, be sure of that.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BDD. You have new messages at JZCL's talk page.
Message added 09:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JZCL 09:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hitler listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Hitler to the page Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Hitler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (Notifying editors involved in previous RfD for WP:HITLER and talk discussion) ― Padenton|✉   22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)