User talk:BDD/Archive 10

Talk:Try Again (disambiguation)
As you have been involved thought you might be interested in commenting on the RM there at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

NYC English
Thanks for resolving the move sensibly. One question: does sock refer to the commenter being a sock puppet? Also, FYI, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore all have been moved to CITY accent. I haven't moved them because 1) It should be done as a major cleanup, probably with the names eliminating city names because there is no dialectal feature limited to those city areas. For example, Baltimore and Philly are really essentially the same, and Boston is just the largest population center in the Eastern New England dialect region and 2) My plans are to get a few linguistics undergraduates involved in a project to work on these and other dialect pages, but that probably won't happen until spring. mnewmanqc (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct about the sockpuppet, though I'm not the one who identified him. If any of these other topics go through RM, I may be around to help with the cleanup. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actors from Houston
Well, we actually do have Category:Male actors from Houston, Texas, which has currently 2 entries. The real push for creating the various Male actors categories only began about a month ago, so its overall success is still largely in the future. So that seems to be the way we are going, but it is taking a while to get there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So should be a container category, then? Or I suppose we could include people who are neither male nor female, though they're still pretty rare. --BDD (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Responses to replies required?
Hello, as you participated in the ANI discussion on me, and are active with the RM process, I thought I'd ask you. I'm having a conversation on my talk page, and it seems as though replies to responses to opinions I post at requested moves must have replies within a day of their being posted. Is there some policy I missed where a reply is required at such a quick pace, or that a reply is necessary (can a reply thread just peter out, or must it continue until the discussion is closed)? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. With very few exceptions, you're never required to do anything around here. Maybe if you find yourself in an Arbcom case you might be in a bit of trouble if you don't respond, but otherwise, no, you're not required to respond to anyone. It's still good etiquette though. As for closing discussions, discussions on user talk pages generally don't get subject to a formal close, again, partially because you're not required to respond, and thus can essentially end conversations simply by not participating any longer. Does that answer your question? --BDD (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm getting the impression from my current conversation at my talk page that if I don't respond in about a day from when a reply is made to me, I'm going to end up at ANI again. I'm to promise to reply to a response to a comment I make if I want to avoid being sent to ANI. If I do make such a promise, it would seem to me, I'd have to keep replying until the discussion is closed by someone. Well, I guess, it's some off the books rules users have between themselves then. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Paris aire urbaine" move
I'm pretty well talking to myself there now in spite of the fact that the tendency seems to be in favour of the article's move, but I am wondering about the comments from contributors (as yourself) who just want the article to move to any English namespace, and how this will affect the outcome. I myself am not opposed to a move from 'aire urbaine', but I am quite against a move to 'metropolitan area' (for reasons I've outlined a thousand times already there), and my vote was only on that particular move. Yet I'm concerned that a vote/comment on the article simply needing to move from a non-English namespace will be construed into a vote for the article's proposed destination. You who seem to have more experience in 'move' affairs: have you seen similar situations before, and if so, what was the outcome?

I may have well drowned/distracted the debate myself with my 'WP:FRINGE' input: although true, that is a eight-year old story that I can't expect others there to investigate/understand, so don't even consider it. All that will only surface (again) if the article does indeed move to a 'metropolitan area' namespace.

For the record, I too would support (with reservations) the article's move to "Paris urban area"; if that's the only referencable way to go to find an English namespace, so be it. I just wish there was a way to make that vote clear. THE PROMENADER  08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for an RM discussion to get a bit complex when there's general agreement for a move but not on a particular destination title. If you want to see a clearer consensus, you may try contacting the other participants and ask them to give their opinions on other options. As for me, I think my position is clear: support for the move as proposed, but also accepting of Paris urban area. Ultimately the decision of how to weigh these opinions will be left up to the closer, though if editors will clarify how they feel about the various options, they'll make his or her job a bit easier. --BDD (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay for contacting the other contributors to the discussion. I wish I could also make it clear (for you as well) that the proposed destination is not suitable, but I've already surpassed my quota of talk-page space. I can only suggest that they read the references I've provided, but most seem to look no further than 'sounds good' because the term proposed is a well-known term that they're familiar with, even though it is inapplicable to this little-known-and-referenced French statistics tool. Anyhow, I'll do what I can, thanks for your insight. THE PROMENADER  10:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you support a move to 'Paris urban area'? That's what most references do (including the creators of the aire urbaine themselves), and I would support that as well. If you do agree, perhaps a word to that end (as you suggested) would help the admin closing the discussion. Thanks. THE PROMENADER  14:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I mentioned at both the RM and earlier in this conversation. --BDD (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shusha
Hi. Sorry, I was not much active in Wikipedia in recent days due to being busy in real life. Could you please let know what was the consensus among the admins with regard the page move discussed here? Thanks. Grand master  19:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We didn't really figure anything out. I didn't hear anything besides what you see there. Go ahead with a new RM. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish separatism in Iran campaignbox
Hello BDD, since you were active on the Kurdish Iranian topic in the past - i would like to notify you the following: Recently an article Kurdish separatism in Iran was forced a split into new Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan; In addition, the campaignbox was as well split : from template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran into the new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict. I proposed to remerge the campaignboxes via a community consensus, with the rationale that the split of articles was made artificially and without any real need (the user who did it, had wanted to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, but when failed - he started a "competitive" article). You are welcome to express your opinion at the discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Talk:Upstairs–Downstairs (album)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Upstairs–Downstairs (album). 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ...had it not been closed I was going to reply to your comment about the less relevant funk album and instead ask you to address ambiguity with the more popular Upstairs Downstairs soundtrack album which comes up first on Amazon.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WinCo Foods
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:WinCo Foods. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thor 2
Just letting you know the redirect template you removed was added as result of discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Moretti/Ivory
Excuse me. How do you as a person involved with the discussion, suddenly make you able to resolve a disputed issue. We have a 4 to 2 discussion with one of the four deliberately weakening their position. Now its resolved by a non-neutral party? This does not seem right. Trackinfo (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented on one of the participants' comments, but I didn't particularly support or oppose the move myself. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, it is a small discussion and a very small trend in one direction . . . a direction your comment supported and the one you decided there was a consensus on. I don't think you have grounds to make such a decision now on such limited participation and your obvious . . . bias. Trackinfo (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much of a trend. Five days went by with no discussion before I made my comment, and then another four went by without comments before the close. Some discussions (most, really) just don't attract a great deal of participation. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These kinds of decisions take on a sense of finality, particularly when you went through the formality of closing off comment. Your urgency for making this permanent decision on such limited discussion is . . . ? Trackinfo (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're just grasping at straws here, but are you familiar with the Requested moves process? Requests are ready for a close after a week, even if in practice they're often open longer due to the length of the backlog. At any rate, very little is permanent on Wikipedia; future RMs can occur, but expect to be linked to WP:IDHT if you don't wait a while first. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of disruptive editing for questioning your decision? I think you need to turn your civility knob up a little. Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just baffled by your interpretation of these events. You seem to not be aware that when RM discussions are closed, they are actually closed, just as occurs at AfD and plenty of other discussion venues. This doesn't prevent you from further commenting on that talk page. I don't know why you found this somehow unusual, final, or permanent. Also, I said nothing about disruptive editing—just that if you turn right around with a new RM, someone else probably will. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: big.Little
There was no consensus on that decision. Why did you declare a blatant violation of the Manual of Style to be correct? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say deadmau5 pretty much killed MOS:CT, don't you think? big.LITTLE was the stable title. I can change the decision of the first RM to no consensus if it would make you feel better. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Australian Fighting Championship
Can I please have a copy of this deleted page to improve it. AFCMMAfan (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Don't forget to work on it, though. Stale drafts are subject to deletion at WP:MFD. The page is now at User:AFCMMAfan/Australian Fighting Championship. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Belinda (entertainer)
I don't know why changing to "(singer)" was relisted. And I want to propose a natural disambiguation, but not while the proposal is still ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and propose an alternative there. Maybe others will approve. Otherwise, a new RM after this one resolves would not be out of line. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I was going to ask the same question about the need to relist. 3-2 against seems about as much involvement as most of these "(entertainer)" RMs have been getting. Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think one relist is almost always worth it. Sometimes it actually works. Once a request has been relisted and there's still no clear consensus—we're talking at least two weeks of listing at this point—then it's time to just make a decision. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

David Wu/Zhou Mi
Hi - would you please explain your finding of consensus to move these two articles? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With majority support and policy-based arguments in support of both, I should rather ask you why you think there was not consensus in either case, if indeed that is what you think. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How are these statements policy related: " "Entertainer" is a bad disambiguator." "A standard comment about "entertainer" being a bad disambiguator should be read here." That's an opinion, unsupported by WP policy or practice, wouldn't you say - and certainly not addressing the particular RM at issue? And I addressed the policy shortcomings, especially at the David Wu RM. Policy prohibits us from relying on self-published sources - especially for BLPs. I was the only one who presented usable sources, and they were quite split in how they referred to Wu. Look, I appreciate you wading into this interminable area of RM discussions, and most of the time, I don't dispute your finding of consensus. I just don't see it here, and would appreciate you discussing my concerns. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the IP says entertainer is a bad disambiguator? Do you think it's just his or her opinion, or do you think he or she agrees with IIO and others advancing policy-based arguments (especially WP:CRITERIA-related) in those same discussions? I'm not going to discount a vote just because it lacks alphabet soup. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP posted before any policy was cited. How do we have any clue what they were thinking? Especially in the Zhou Mi RM, where they were responding to In ictu's wrong nomination statement (later corrected) that Zhou Mi had never acted? Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is around enough that he or she knows IIO is proposing a slate of these (entertainer) moves. Sorry, Dohn, but I'm not the one who insisted on unbundling these. That still doesn't mean they're not related. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of unbundling was to consider each one on its own merits. If someone says, "I hate them all," how is that following In ictu's policy arguments, which at least are tailored to the specific RM? Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IIO's core argument, that (entertainer) fails WP:CRITERIA, applies to all of these discussions. I don't see the issue here. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not his argument. In ictu has said that he believes that there are articles where it is appropriate - when the person is an old-timey vaudeville or burlesque performer, for example. Which is why he has begun citing sources to show that in a particular case, "entertainer" is not a good dab. And there is at least a reasonable argument for his reading of WP:CRITERIA. There is no reasonable policy-based argument for the IP saying "Entertainer is always a bad dab." Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but we're not discussing vaudeville performers here. I could ask the IP, but I suspect he or she is focusing on the pages under discussion. I suppose we could ask. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's the whole point. We're not talking vaudeville, and yet the IP didn't address the RM at issue, but gave blanket statements that "Using entertainer is always bad." This is not the approach In ictu took, and it's not policy-based. Dohn joe (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News
Hi BDD. I closed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News discussion. If you have time, please look over the implementation of the close to see if anything has been missed. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you took care of mostly everything. This edit to the delsort should wrap it up. There was only one event categorized there, and I've removed it too. Thanks for seeing to this. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

corrosponding talkpage move
Talk:Asian–African Conference. Could you move this talk page to its corrosponding article? Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. I must have overlooked that. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Titling is reverted. Perhaps reopen the proposal? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good idea. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Maicon Sisenando RM
Hi there. You proposed a move for Maicon Sisenando in February 2013, which was reasonable. I've now opened a new RM, where I propose that this footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I hope you take the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Theresa Obermeyer
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Theresa Obermeyer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 September 2013‎

Category:National Lacrosse League venues
Category:National Lacrosse League venues, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish separatism in Iran
i would like to notify you that articles Kurdish separatism in Iran and Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan are proposed to be merged. Previously related discussion involving yourself was held at proposal to rename "Kurdish separatism in Iran"->"Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" (rejected). In addition, the template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was later split ( into new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict, but was later remerged via a community consensus (see discussion). Current merger discussion is held at Kurdish separatism in Iran.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli). 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect question
Hi! I'm not sure where to ask this, but saw that you're an admin so figured I might as well ask to see if you'd have an idea about the proper process/thing to do. Santee–Cooper River is a page that someone created in reference to two different rivers in the same area. Both rivers have their own page and because this river doesn't really exist as a single river, it's not like any sort of article could really be made. However, it would be a very valid re-direct because of the number of things in the area with the name "Santee-Cooper". However, is it possible that a redirect can be made to two different articles? I thought about making an attempt to flesh it out more, but without simply repeating information contained in both river articles, or changing it to the Santee-Cooper River Basin, I'm at a loss as to what can/should be done. Any input or could you lead me to someone who might know? Thanks! Ultraviolet (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a redirect can't target two articles. In most cases, you'd want to create a disambiguation page to link to both pages. But this might look a bit silly as a dab: "X and Y may refer to: X, Y." A WP:DABCONCEPT article might be better, to describe the joint basin in an article that would link to the individual articles on both rivers. It would go in, so Santee–Cooper River basin or Santee–Cooper Watershed might be good titles for such an article (I'm unsure whether we'd want to capitalize basin or watershed; it might be best to defer to usage in sources). --BDD (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Userfication request
Please userfy Archive.is and Talk:Archive.is under User:Lexein including both edit histories. The complete edit histories are critically important. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sure. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, belatedly. I've read from 2 admins that including edit histories for userfications is a pain - is that your assessment? --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been my experience, no. But there could certainly be some trick cases out there. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BDD, there also is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Using Archive.is and Archive.is RFC, each of which could use a close. Since you closed Articles for deletion/Archive.is, it may be beneficial if you close these other two discussions as well. Also Archive.is RFC/Rotlink email attempt may need to be looked at.-- Jreferee (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Please explain "looked at": the email to Rotlink was emailed and posted yesterday, as a result of forming consensus for contacting Rotlink in the RFC. * IMHO, the RFC needs to be republicized more widely, because quite a lot of editors who use archive services (but don't know about the RFC or ANI) haven't chimed in, and editors who know a lot about proxies and botnets haven't checked in either. A lot of FUD is being tossed around, and conclusions drawn from weak circumstantial evidence. * There's also an open question of standardizing the RFC name, at WT:Archive.is RFC. --Lexein (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked at in the sense of there being no basis to create a sub page dedicated to one talk page post when there already is an RFC discussion with talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. The whole conversation (posted with permission) is up now. Shall I (or the other party) forward the conversation thread to OTRS? --Lexein (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I may end up closing some of those discussions, and I thank you for the show of confidence, but at this point I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to jump into those. Whether Archive.is meets mainspace notability requirements and whether it's suitable for use behind the scenes are separate questions. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

AT&T Stadium
I enjoyed your closing remarks at Talk:AT&T Stadium/Archive 1. Thank you for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia and Baltimore dialect or accent
Hi BDD, I noticed that Kwamikagami recently moved the articles of Philadelphia dialect to Philadelphia accent and Baltimore dialect to Baltimore accent without any discussion on their talk pages. It seems that Kwamikagami did the same on the New York City English article (where the user moved New York dialect to New York accent) and it was finally to New York City English. I was wondering if you can review the Philadelphia accent and Baltimore accent articles and see if proper move needs to be made?--Filmested (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those moves are fine per WP:BOLD if the articles haven't been the subject of RMs before. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make a call on whether or not they were right in terms of substance. The best thing to do if you disagree with them would be to create new RMs. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Four Award
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Four Award. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace of Gautama Buddha
You closed the discussion on the talk page as "consensus was not moved" however- the page has already been moved. Don't know what consensus you were reading. The thread above that thread had a clear consensus as had the previous discussion on the topic that took place on Jimbo's talk page. It is a moot point as the page has been moved. The talk page you closed the discussion on should actually be speedily deleted per CSD policy. Thanks though for participating.Camelbinky (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know what to make of that page, it was such a mess. I only said not moved because I didn't move anything. At any rate, it's been userfied now, which seems like about the best outcome that could be hoped for. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kappa mechanism
Hi, I noticed you moved the article κ mechanism to κappa mechanism (initial kappa), ideally we'd want to get rid of the kappa entirely, i.e. kappa mechanism (initial k), as per the move request. Could you take another look please? (I used lower-case letters here so that kappa and k appear distinct in this font). 77.56.99.228 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Apologies for that. Yes, I guess the uppercase kappa and K looked the same in my browser. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

MfD
Hi BDD. If you have time, please consider closing some of the Old business MfDs (I can't close iVoted in most of them). Also, I noted above on your talk page an RFC and MfD regarding Archive.is that need closing. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't let it wreck your home
Hey, I see Homewrecker has piqued your interest, and now you're actually working on the article. Of course, don't obsess, or you could be patr of the subject!

All kidding aside, thanks for working on it, including, especially, the move request. -Dovid (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anzac Mounted Division 2nd RM
Hi, this second requested move was denied because there was no consensus, but the votes in opposition are questionable on the basis of logic and problems with the earlier decision. These issue were raised during this 2nd RM. Would it be possible to re-evaluate your decision on the basis of these questionable opposition votes? Failing that, could you look at the earlier consensus for the first requested move, acknowledge the consensus, and change your decision? If that is not possible could the strength of the arguments following WP:POLL be included in your deliberations? --Rskp (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your comments on the talk page, I did evaluate arguments. It appears you were the only editor in that discussion in favor of the move. You assert that "consensus of military historians" and potential confusion were reasons to move. I can't give much weight to the former. See WP:SSF—on matters of style, such as capitalization, we don't necessarily defer to sources. As for the potential confusion, no one seems to agree with you on that point. I think you may have been correct about the previous RM, but that's not what I was assessing. This time, there was no consensus for or against the move. That seems pretty clear to me. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Move review for ANZAC Mounted Division
An editor has asked for a Move review of ANZAC Mounted Division. 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.

Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remember me
Can you please remember me the wp policy about infoboxes, the no flags ones. Thanks, Osplace 17:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I see there that they're acceptable in human geographic articles, which I suppose South Asia is more so than a physical geographic one, so I won't fuss if you want to revert me there. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! No! Is ok! I meant a lot of volleyball articles full of flags that I would use this policy to clean, thanks! Osplace 16:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had always left them alone in articles on sports and military conflicts, so I'm glad to see they have an exception carved out. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576361718 your edit] to Benjamin Briscoe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * was the Ajax. A year later the brothers brought out the Briscoe  automotive company car in America manufactured at Jackson, Michigan, but which they promoted as

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577190746 your edit] to Leipzig Hauptbahnhof may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Leipzig Hauptbahnhof Leipzig main station is, at 83,460 m², the world's largest railway station when measured by floor area. It has 24

WP:MRV Closing script
I have created a closing script for move reviews, which can found at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add  to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either.) Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC) You received this message because you closed at least one MRV discussion in the last six months.

Talk:The Wandering Songstress
Right now you have one neutral and one weak support. There's no need to relist or move, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. That ok? --BDD (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian Anglican dioceses discussion
Hi BDD, this is regarding the discussion you recently closed. The 6 articles that I had requested to move are part of a group of other CSI diocese articles, whose names are in the format 'Anglican Diocese of X'. Please can you move these articles to this format in order to maintain uniformity in the names of the group? I can't do it myself because the destinations are not blank (the pages had already been moved from there previously) Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're asking me to move the same articles I just said there's no consensus to move? I generally value consistency in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to titles, but it was established in the discussion that those six dioceses are different from regular Anglican dioceses since they're operated in partnership with other churches. That said, I note that among those six, there's inconsistency as to whether they're named Diocese of Foo of the Church of South India versus Foo Diocese of the Church of South India. If you'd like to correct that inconsistency, I'll be happy to help. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, although I prefer Anglican diocese of X, I'm okay with any style as long as its consistently applied. And no, those six are not particularly different, it's just that StAnselm stopped in the middle of reverting the group move I had done earlier. These just happened to be the first six he moved. The Discoverer (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Ok, I'm happy to consider the rest of those articles as well. Do you think the "Diocese of Foo..." or "Foo Diocese..." form would be better? We'll keep CSI in there, of course. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could go back to the name they had been moved from. Some are 'Diocese of ..' and some are 'Foo Diocese...' . But again this would also ignore a formal decision. The advantage of going back to 'Anglican Diocese of ...'  is that that would be the status quo, because until now, all the CSI and CNI bishops, dioceses and their categories have been named with 'Anglican'. Anyway, you can take a call on it. I'm going to be logging out in a while. Best regards, The Discoverer (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD, Between StAnselm and myself, we have moved the CSI articles to 'Diocese of X of the CSI'. The only one remaining is Anglican Diocese of Coimbatore which has to be moved to Diocese of Coimbatore of the Church of South India, in order to dab with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Coimbatore. However, I am unable to complete the move due to technicalities. Please could you do it? Thanks, The Discoverer (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Glad we were able to work this out. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, BDD. Cheers! The Discoverer (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arnold (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Arnold (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) 11:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robin Hood tax
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robin Hood tax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- 10:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Help Desk move request
Hi BDD. You made this move in March 2013. There is a request at the Help Desk entitled Moving an archive page seems to indicate that not all the archived talk pages were moved. Would you mind replying at the Help Desk request. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ok, I think it's all been sorted out. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD. Thanks for resolving the redirect issue.  There is still one more issue.  Archives 6 thru 8 won't show on the talk page above the archive search feature.  Thanks again. --Mitchumch (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)
Ladies and gents! The disambiguation page is now undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. Therefore, I invite you to particapte in the move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another requested move has started. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois Central 121
Thanks for handling that. One question: will the interwiki links update themselves, or do I need to update wikidata manually? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The post-move screens now say Wikidata items will be updated on their own, but I don't know how that works when a new page occupies the older title. If you can update it manually, I'm sure it would be helpful; if not, it will get sorted out. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea, and it turns out the interwiki links were all to some spiral galaxy named IC 121 anyways :). Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Melody.
Your edits to remove the stylization broke the template, btw.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the most common surnames in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reyes (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) 11:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect title of the Millennial Generation page
Please see this discussion involving you on the Millennial Generation talk page:

The name of this page should be "Millennial Generation" -- not "Millennials". For example, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers". How do we get it changed to Millennial Generation? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The title was arrived at by consensus in the section right above this one. Sources refer to the "Millennials", not "Millennial Generation". --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The actual title was not arrived at with a consensus. Could you point out the discussion about that? Again, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers".


 * P.S. The consensus you quote above misspells the name with one letter "n". So then by your logic then we should change it to Millenials (with one "n" instead of two).


 * P.S.S. Also read the first line of the above "Requested Move" discussion, it says : "Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability" 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please DO NOT change my vote on the Millennials talk page "under requested move" like it appears you did from Wikipedia's "history" of edits.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While RMs are not polls, it's still common practice to strike duplicate votes. It's not necessary to reiterate your position in bold every time you make a comment. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dude, dont change my vote!172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll say it one more time, it appears you changed my first vote. You cant do that at all. I clearly stated "support" -- with the word ("again") on the second. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robin Hood tax
The article Robin Hood tax you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Robin Hood tax for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rcat talk move
BDD, would you mind moving Template talk:Redirect from school to Template talk:R from school to match this move you made earlier? I would do it for you, but I made a second edit to the redirect in 2011, so it requires an admin's touch to move over it. No hurry, and thank you in advance! –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 06:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for noticing. I've gotten more careful about looking for those instances where talk pages aren't overwritten in the move. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BDD! Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 03:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian. 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 Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (film)
I really don't like saying what I've said in reply. You're a good editor and I supported your nom for admin. But the first thing to do with any RM is put the title in the top RH search box and see what content en.wp already has, not titles. Or change WP:DAB. Thanks :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Striking a vote on the Millennial Generation talk page
I'm contacting you here as a courtesy first. You incorrectly crossed out a vote on the Millennial Generation talk page (as discussed above under "Incorrect title of the Millennial Generation page").

Please change the vote back to "support" and remove the strike-out code you inserted.

It's never appropriate to change another editor's vote. Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being willing to discuss this with me. If you follow the instructions at WP:RMCM and say "Support as nominator," you may un-strike the vote. It's rarely appropriate to change another editor's vote. Duplicates and sock votes are exceptions, however. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, but I do think it was a bit over the top to strike it while I was blocked -- while technically you might have been able to do that.172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Copy/paste move at Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Your move closure at Talk:Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was reverted by a copy/paste move. That probably ought to be repaired, one way or another. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK review
I am concerned about your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Ashwood. There are numerous problems in the article, but the most serious (which you should have noticed, as you alluded to Wakefield in your statement passing the hook) was the original research/synthesis connecting the author to Andrew Wakefield, a disgraced British physician accused by numerous sources of fraud. As odious as Wakefield may be, Wikipedia needs to let secondary sources make those connections, not string together primary sources to draw the conclusion ourselves. The version you passed, among other problems, had three primary sources strung together:"While at Royal Free, Ashwood was also a co-author on a number of papers Wakefield published after his fraudulent 1998 Lancet paper." and no attribution to Brian Deer on the other Wakefield statement:"Ashwood was formerly one of Andrew Wakefield's colleagues at Royal Free Hospital, and has received over ₤8,000 as a result of his serving as a paid witness in MMR litigation." The first is WP:SYNTH and a BLP vio, regardless of what we may think about Wakefield. The second is a problem because it was sourced to Deer's own website, and Deer was the journalist who (rightfully) helped bring down Wakefield, so we need to be sure we are saying it is his claim. Another big concern is that the hook was cited to a press release from Ashwood's own employer! Meaning, Wikipedia put on the mainpage a medical claim not based on WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, but on a press release (not an independent source!). There was other misuse of primary sources, press releases connected to the source (puffery), uncited text, and problems with the kinds of sources we expect for medical topics (WP:MEDRS), and there was in indiscriminate list of publications (WP:NOT) adding to the article size, so that I'm not sure if the article was long enough for DYK anyway, but that is not my concern. I'm glad I saw the article through DYK and was able to begin checking the rest of this editor's work. At this point my bigger concern is to review the dozens of medical BLPs this author has written, as so far I've found too close paraphrasing, uncited BLP text, the BLP vio mentioned above, incorrect use or primary sources, and more. I hope you'll take more care when reviewing DYKs that we not put BLP vios or faulty medical information on Wikipedia's mainpage; it could be good to call in someone from WP:MED who understands our medical sourcing guidelines if you come across a medical article in your future reviewing. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I probably didn't take as much time on that review as I should have. I think the hook itself is still ok, but I wasn't aware of who Brian Deer was or why his claims can't be taken on face value—I agree with you on this much. I don't really see a problem with that first statement you've highlighted, though. The Andrew Wakefield article already calls the Lancet paper fraudulent, and the article is only making a factual claim that Ashwood has been a co-author with Wakefield since then. The sources support that, and I don't think it's a very WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. It's not saying "Paul Ashwood is a quack because he has repeatedly worked with Andrew Wakefield." It's just saying they've published together. Unless you think those sources are themselves fraudulent, I don't see the problem. Would it have been better if we quoted a neutral journalist saying the same thing? Sure, but perfection isn't the standard, especially at DYK. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your recognition, but now I'm doubly concerned that you might not understand what WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are-- these are core policies. The Wikipedia author used three primary sources to infer a conclusion that has not been made by any secondary source, about a living person.  Yes, quoting a neutral journalist would be fine and is how we do that on Wikipedia-- that is core and fundamental to what we are about and what our policies are.  Perfection is FAR from the standard at DYK, but BLP vios are core issues everywhere and anywhere and most certainly one that should be understood by admins.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely if you're linking me to WP:OR you're familiar with our policy on primary sources. Which conclusion, exactly, do you think was inferred? There was a simple statement that Ashwood and Wakefield have published together. Where does one need to make an inference? --BDD (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What secondary source has made this connection between Wakefield and Ashwood? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Made what connection? Unless you reject primary sources altogether, which is not in line with policy, I'm really having trouble understanding this objection. Do you think the sources are somehow wrong, perhaps that they're referring to different Wakefields or Ashwoods? Or that we can't make neutral factual observations unless we can point to someone else saying the same thing? --BDD (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take a theoretical, wild, hypothetical that might drive the point home of how careful we should be with BLPs. Suppose you happened to be assigned in college to live with someone who turned out to be a serial killer.  And suppose no sources discussing the crimes of that serial killer drug you into the matter.  But suppose you had a bio on Wikipedia, and I went to a primary source, raw data, where college roommates were listed by your college's website.  And then added to your bio that you lived with a serial killer in college, based on my doing the original research of going to find the data from your college, although no secondary source covered that.  Do you think you might feel you had been treated unfairly by Wikipedia, considering it advanced a statement that no secondary source had covered, and that a Wikipedian produced by going to do his own research by digging out raw data?  I'm glad to know that the MIND institute has hired a man who was a Wakefield associate.  Now I get to wonder if the MIND institute hires charlatans.  And not because any reliable source said any such thing or advanced that position, but because a Wikipedian tied them together based on raw data and put that notion in an article.  Anyway, whether you understand or not, the real point is ... please ... in the future, if you are reviewing a medical DYK, please consult with someone at WP:MED.  Time and again we find that DYK does not understand either the importance of BLP policy, or our medical sourcing requirements.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajneesh reversal request.

 * Hi there, just want to note that this was a hasty and not very well considered move. This article has a history of controversy and bold moves such as this would generally warrant a longer consultation period.
 * Personally, I see insufficient justification, it is far being a matter of honorific title usage.
 * Across most of the notable literature on the subject, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is by far the most widely used title for this individual.
 * We generally refer to the best secondary sources to ascertain appropriate titles, those sources in this instance are mostly academic publications and most use "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh."
 * Google Scholar: Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh usage 1993-2012
 * Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is still widely used in mainstream writings.
 * Also: "Osho Rajneesh" usage 1993-2013
 * Marion Goldman (a notable academic commentator on Rajneesh) interchanges Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh with Osho Rajneesh in an Oxford University Press book published in 2011 (Goldman, Marion S. 2011. Cultural Capital, Social Networks, and Violence at Rajneeshpuram. In Violence and New Religious Movements. Edited by James R. Lewis). Semitransgenic talk. 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may make a new RM, and refer anyone to me if they're complaining that it's too soon for another. While the first move was the result of unanimous consensus after a regular listing period and thus is valid, discussion was fairly one-dimensional and with somewhat limited participation. If you'd like to present a new argument with new evidence—which it looks like you're prepared to do—you may do so. If the second request upholds "Rajneesh," however, the issue should probably be left alone for a few months. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD, thanks for your reply, if that is the only way to approach this I guess I will need to make a new proposal, but if a bold reversal were technically possible, I would simply employ that. Thanks. Semitransgenic  talk. 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions don't always come to the right conclusion, of course, but it's generally not appropriate to unilaterally reverse them. This will be best. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. have posted a new MR, let's see what comes of it. Thanks. Semitransgenic  talk. 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually…
I committed the proverbial unpardonable upon a sleeping canine, and did not know how to unscrew it. Many thanks for the correction. Great catch. And I wish your attitude was contagious….

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jeffrey Trammell
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 08:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Article - Loudflower
I was curious about the recent deletion of my article Loudflower. I would question whether a combined vote total of three editors is enough to constitute a consensus. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * AfDs aren't primarily about vote counts, but once they've been relisted twice already it really becomes time to make a decision, at which point that's one of the factors a closer will typically consider in making a decision. In this case, I believe the delete voters were correct in asserting the subject had not passed GNG or BAND. I saw one source, the Cross Rhythms piece, that was up to GNG standards, which is not enough to keep an article. If you'd like, I can userfy the article to your userspace for you to continue working on to demonstrate notability. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful, actually. Thank you. I already created a space for it here. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ask and ye shall receive. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)