User talk:BDD/Archive 11

Rajneesh move
Hi again BDD, as you were involved in the article move, I would appreciate some input on this matter if you have any. Best Semitransgenic  talk. 18:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jews/infobox
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jews/infobox. 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) 00:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board
Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of artifacts significant to the Bible
Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thigh gap
Hello, as you closed Thigh gap's RfD, you may be interested in the new article Thigh gap and its associated DYK. Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli MR
I've changed the move request per your suggestion (hopefully its not too late for that). Thanks for the helpful notice about wp:primarytopic.Alexikoua (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
Moving this title has been re-proposed. Join in by clicking above link. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you look at and give your thoughts on the following?
 * The close of the requested move at Sega v. Accolade --
 * Does that close necessitate changes to MOS:LAW such as this or this?
 * Does the close at Sega necessitate reopening a requested move at Microsoft which was closed only 1-1/2 months ago as move, here?
 * The discussion at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp. --
 * Particularly the discussion at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.?
 * Does the close at Sega necessitate immediate changes to MOS:LAW --
 * Considering the MOS:LAW section was just added by consensus 1-1/2 months ago?
 * Your thoughts on these issues would be appreciated. Thanks and regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to have exceptions to naming conventions, so I don't think either Sega v. Accolade or MOS:LAW need to knock down the other. Since that naming convention is relatively new, I think time and experience will either affirm or contradict it. If it becomes a widely-followed standard, Sega might be worth a second look. If similar RMs uphold or move to simplified names, it might be time to deprecate the naming convention. Either way, I don't think this necessitates a new Microsoft RM or that it's too soon for another, though of course participants will be free to disagree with me on the latter. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rick
Hi, I did not ask to be autopatrolled. I suppose a consequence was that I did not get much feedback on my work. I have certainly learnt my lesson now and I am very sorry. I have read the policy documents now and intend never to transgress again.Rick570 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was strange to see rights essentially being added by bot. If you still think you should keep autopatrolled, I won't make a fuss. It's good that you've learned something from this. Don't get discouraged. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feast day
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Feast day. 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) 00:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TfD closure process clarification
Hi, as somebody who has closed TfDs recently, this is to inform you of Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sega v. Accolade
Renaming the title was re-proposed. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Joseph
Please reopen this. The close is in contradiction of the MOS guideline. Alternatively reopen with (biblical person) as the dab. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that count as WP:PDAB though? --BDD (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant MOS:SAINTS; is Joseph only recognisable by inclusion of Saint? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors in the discussion disagreed, and I don't think I could've simply overridden that without supervoting. I meant wouldn't Joseph (biblical person) be PDAB? As was pointed out in discussion, that title could also refer to Joseph (son of Jacob) or Joseph of Arimathea. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, yes Joseph (biblical person) be unclear, good point. Joseph (husband of Mary)
 * Admins normally close discussions where a local consensus opposes a guideline by noting WP:NOTAVOTE. Where a guideline has been dispute the closing admin should comment on the disputed guideline MOS:SAINTS; is Joseph only recognisable by inclusion of Saint? Are there alternatives to "Saint" includes disambiguation as an alternative to Saint. I thought there was guidance on closing an RM somewhere which outlines what to do when !votes mount against a guideline or policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The key difference between the situation you're describing and the actual situation is that Saint Joseph is a stable title. In 2009, it was moved to Joseph, husband of Mary, mother of Jesus due to MOS:SAINT (the actual link was to WP:NCROY), but it was reverted in just over 10 minutes. In 2011, it was moved to the clearly disruptive Joseph (father of moeses. Otherwise, the page never seems to have had a different name. Inasmuch as it contradicts MOS:SAINT, that sounds more like WP:IAR than LOCALCONSENSUS to me. In practice, MOS:SAINT is what I would call a soft guideline, in contrast to, say, WP:USPLACE which does not get commonsense exceptions. Clear consensus at a MOS talk page or the article talk page would be enough to change this; a no consensus outcome is not.
 * But this is all procedural quibbling on my part. I don't necessarily disagree with your overall proposition that the article should be moved. I think there's a strong case to be made for Joseph (father of Jesus). It's consistent with Mary (mother of Jesus), unquestionably recognizable, and avoids the honorific. I suppose there could be doctrinal quibbles, but even Christians refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus, with the understanding that he was more like a stepfather. The only real objection I could see is WP:NATURAL, but hey, goose and gander, right? --BDD (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to intrude, just noting Joseph (father of Jesus) isn't necessarily neutral either! Face-smile.svg Red Slash 19:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Naming conventions (clergy) does not say it is a soft guideline, it says this:

Evidently those editors who are claiming it is "common name" have not read either the guideline or looked at Google Books but are simply polling. The close should have supported Wikipedia's MOS NPOV and RS guidelines, even if the result is "no consensus". The problem with the close is that you haven't indicated in the closing statement that there is problem with the result. You haven't left the door open to resolve the conflict of the title with MOS NPOV and RS guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it says right there, "occasional exceptions may apply." No guidelines are really labeled as soft. It's more a matter of practice. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail too!
Sorry for the delay--that email went to an old address of mine! Red Slash 19:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

deletion of William Pattison (author)
Hello. I initially proposed the deletion of this article, for what I still believe to be just cause, but the subject of the article and his friends/associates believe there has been an injustice done and feel the page should be restored. I may have erred in letting these people know that I proposed the deletion, and they now seem to think I have some influence on whether it can be restored. Since they seem not to be acquainted with how the Wiki works, I have referred them to your Talk page, as the record indicates yu deleted the article and, as a far more experienced editor, you can advise what they need to produce an article that is a positive contribution to the Wiki. 07:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs)
 * I suppose one of said friends or associates should get in touch with me, though they're not good choices to develop an article on the person, per WP:COI. Best if they just let this go, realize that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and let someone else recreate as appropriate if it can be shown that the person passes WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Category : Congressman stripped of committee assignment
you apparently don't like that as a category. Given it's a pretty heavy penalty and rarely assigned, it's useful to be able to track down cases where it's been applied.--Patbahn (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ( I just unarchived the thread because Patbahn responded to it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Not at all. It's just that it didn't exist as a category. It was red. I wouldn't object to anyone establishing it and then categorizing articles as appropriate. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it created the category, it was a followable link but it was in red, so I thought someone needed to do something to bless it. Can you fix that? --Patbahn (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Adding a red category doesn't create the category any more than making a red (mainspace) link creates an article. However, it's perfectly acceptable to add a red category and then go ahead and create it. Since you ask, I'll do that. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denver C. Snuffer, Jr.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Denver C. Snuffer, Jr.. 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, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Worlds of Ultima games
Never played them, if someone's misinformed me about the character creation feel free to remove this category. --Niemti (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Gross error in closing Indian reserve RM....very very bad
And here I thought I'd keep my hands washed of Wikipedia; Canadian and IPNA editors finally reached a consensus on the proper title for Indian reserve and the attached categories and lists, and someone from Idaho who doesn't know the subject matter approves an IP-user-nominated RM that has no bearing on the context; and did you even think to look at the kind of articles that user works on (pedophilia, my little pony etc.)?? I've notified WP Canada and am about to do the same on WP:IPNA. This needs an immediate reversal. Think before you act, Mr BDD. This has sweeping effects, and this title should not be subject to such wanton RM'ing in future. Nominated on the 13th, moved on the 21st with only TWO votes? Give your head a shake.Skookum1 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's my fault RMs have low participation. It was relisted on the 13th; it had been open since the 4th, i.e., two and a half weeks. No one from any of those WikiProjects bothered to give any input, so I made a decision based on the information available to me. And no, of course I didn't look into what other articles the IP edits. The user isn't blocked, and could very well be a dynamic IP anyway. Comment on the content applies. Due to the low discussion there, there would be nothing wrong with another RM with new evidence. It would also be a nice gesture for you to apologize for or strike the erroneous statements you've made here. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, please keep your emotions in check. Just reopen a new RM. It is unfortunate the move wasn't advertised on the Canadian WikiProject, but that is not BDD's fault. When it comes time to proposed the new RM, use the strong technical rationale we used to successfully move the category to its rightful title and avoid hanging the rationale on neologisms, which was not helping the case last time before the strong technical rationale was developed. Hwy43 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the emotions, as you know I have a heart condition and withdrew from Wikipedia from one bit of uninformed-but-RS'd idiocy too many. I do not have the energy - or politesse - to launch an RM.  Please shepherd this back into the real world and find some way to lock it down against further uninformed and ill-advised moves.Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Margaret Mary Vojtko
Hi. I see that you created this article, presumably after reading the Slate piece. As I've said on the talk page, I'd like to nominate it for DYK and expand it a little.

However, I think we should rename the article to "Death of Margaret Mary Vojtko", following our practice with other articles, as that is what has made her name notable, not anything she did while alive. This is consistent with a number of our other articles (just search on "Death of ..." or . As the article creator, I'd like to know what your opinion is. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PROD on Murderball
I did, and in my first edit I forgot to actually remote the PROD, thus oops. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On relisting.
Hi BDD. Here, I think you are leaning decidedly to relist where a "no consensus" close is more appropriate, considering how recent the previous RM was, and how little new content there is in the discussion. NB. I mean this as mere personal opinion, and am wondering what you think, and of course I an expressed opinion in the discussion. I do not intend criticism, indeed you are doing a fine job in closing lots of discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That probably could've been a no consensus. It's generally harmless to relist, though I will sometimes just close as NC after a week when there's been a lot of discussion anyway. Worst case scenario here is a week goes by, there's still no consensus, and the discussion is closed as such. But we may end up with consensus one way or another. You're right that I lean to relist in general and prefer NC closures when a discussion has already been relisted. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent move to Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
Hello BDD. I would like a review of the recent move (18th 0f June) of 'Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn' to 'Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn'. I have two reasons: 1) All articles on this Wikipedia on British Peers include a surname in the article title. That goes for articles on peers and courtesy title holders called Windsor as well. Those members of the House of Windsor that do not have the title of HRH revert to the naming conventions for peers. See also the recent discussion on George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews. Also see these article titles: Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster, Claire Windsor, Countess of Ulster, Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden, Sylvana Windsor, Countess of St Andrews and Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick. For consistency I would think that it therefore should be 'Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn' as well. Also this seems to be the way to name this article per NCROY. 2) I can see hardly any discussion on the talk page in the section where the move was requested. Only a remark by the proposer of the move saying "— Only three sources call him Alastair Windsor . More sources leave it out ". This reasoning shouldn't override Wikipedia policy. Also no one seems to have participated in the discussion further. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and just start a new request. It's been long enough. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

US station naming conventions
Hi! You're being spammed because you've participated in the move discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line). I'm seeking input for a broader policy solution to US station name articles at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) and I hope that you'll participate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear WP:RFD regular
Hey BDD,

I just wanted to let you know that it looks like DumbBOT, the bot that creates the new WP:RFD subpages, as well as posting the link onto Redirects for discussion, is not functioning. This bot has not made any edits since November 23. I recently had to transclude Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25 onto WP:RFD; they were never there until I added their transclusions. Also, the bot usually creates the subpages a few days in advance, and has not been doing that either; I went ahead and created the subpages up until December 1st.

I let the bot's owner, User:Tizio, know about DumbBOT's malfunctioning. It looks like it might have been shut off, but I cannot be for certain. Either way, I wanted to give you this "heads-up" in case the daily pages might need to be created and transcluded manually. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ciaran Kilduff
Hi can you restore Kilduff's page as he has played in the Europa League proper. For example: http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2012/matches/round=2000272/match=2007277/postmatch/lineups/index.html Thanks DavidDublin (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Rick570
Has anything been done here? He still seems to be creating articles willy-nilly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Have any recent creations been deleted? I noticed a new batch of AfDs on his talk page, but so far those that were deleted were created last year. I wouldn't want to fault him for pages he made in the past; he says he'll be more careful, and I'm willing to believe that. If he's continuing to create articles that are getting deleted, however, it's clearly not appropriate for him to have autopatrolled permissions. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC).

no consensus on Category:Nass Country Cfd - you asked this
you asked in that CfD if there was an "Historical geographic regions of British Columbia]]; there is, but at the time I created it, I was advised just to use "Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia as the regions in question are not historical; more like "traditional with historical roots and some geographic parameters". Not all are valleys, some span various valleys, others defined by mutual location. There are two main subdivisions, Interior and Coast, and some regions span both (as does the Nass and its neighbour the Skeena. These are hte primary subdivisions of BC, the regional district names and other subdivision names are derived from them. The "Geographic regions of BC" title is problematic because it indicates other things; Intermontane Belt, which is in the main category, is really a Category:Geological regions of British Columbia and is one of the five or so top-tier ones; another is Omineca Belt which I don't think has an article yet; it's not limited to the Omineca Country, just named for it as where the geological formation was first observed; there's also Geophysical/geomorphological regions of British Columbia, which is pretty much covered by Category:Landforms of British Columbia and those aren't the same, though have similar names to the geological regions and also to some of the ecozones/ecoregions....we have complicated geography, needless to say. Maybe a group category for the traidiontal names, which are now spread out through a multi-level tree, might serve well, but "what to call it?". All are citable, some very notably so, but finding printed specifics on that is hard; only a few like Lower Mainland have citations in BCGNIS/BC Names. We have some renaming issues with Category:Chilcotin or whatever it's called now (Category:Chilcotin Country is where I first had it, I think it's at Category:Chilcotin region or Category:Chilcotin (region) now....), which spun off speedy-renames for categories based on changes to the mainarticle names; a lot of knee-jerkery has gone on, often with confusing results Category:Squamish people was, briefly and very confusingly, Category:Squamish (which is primarily the name of the town not the people it's named for.....and similar was about to happen to Category:Tsilhqot'in to Category:Chilcotin and once again the latter is more widely the name for the regoin, not t he people..... the Nass Country is also the territory of the Nisga'a Lisims but it's important to know that while "Nisga'a" means "people of the Nass River" that "Nass Country" is about the region, not about the notion of their sovereign status...."Country" has other meanings that nation-state of course, and that is entrenced in BC English as-she-is-spoke. And complications like Fraser Valley meaning only the last 100 miles of the river's basin are all over the place.......all ctiable by example, but not by any one publication or style guide.....none that I know of anyway. I may have to write/publish one...Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In Our Time
Hi, you changed the title, added a few redirects, but the problem is that it had many links, now gone (see for instance Big Two-Hearted River, which is now pointing to a disamb page). Is this something I'm to fix? Would it have been possible to ask on the talk page, given that at least three of the affected pages are FA status? The same situation applies to the title change to the Nick Adams pages. I would have liked to have seen consensus to change, or at least a warning so that the links can be fixed. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm keeping an eye on what links there so I can go fix incoming links. Unfortunately, most of what's there are transclusions from Ernest Hemingway. I've already updated the template, but it may be another day before the WLH gets updated. Regardless, I'll follow through on this.
 * Nick Adams won't be a problem, however. The Nick Adams Stories (book) redirects to The Nick Adams Stories, and I fixed the only double redirect that the page move created. There's nothing wrong with other articles linking by way of the redirect with unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well actually there is because I wrote the articles specifically to link to the page and not to the disamb page. The same is true of Nick Adams, because I've been very careful in terms of linking to the character or the short story collection. We shouldn't be sending the readers to disambig pages and these kind of linkage issues are taken care of before a page passes FA. Off the top of my head, I've written about IoT at Ernest Hemingway, "Indian Camp", "Big Two-Hearted River" (all FA), and linked in most of the stories, etc., etc. What was the rationale for the move, just out of curiosity? And why wasn't it in mentioned on the talk page? Again, just out of curiosity? Victoria (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct in that articles generally should not link to dab pages. In the case of Nick Adams, though, that's not going to happen, because there's no dab page involved there. For a reader, there will be no difference in linking to The Nick Adams Stories (book) versus just The Nick Adams Stories, since the former redirects to the latter. I'm working on fixing those links now, and I do regret not getting to that yesterday, as I had planned. I didn't end up doing any editing yesterday. I'll leave an update here once the job's done.
 * As for the rationales behind the moves, you can find those in the page histories, but I'll elaborate here. IOT was about WP:NCBOOKS, a naming convention that generally discourages (book) as a disambiguator, especially for works of fiction. The title with (short story collection) is also consistent with other Hemingway short story collections that need disambiguators, such as Men Without Women, thus fulfilling one of the points of WP:CRITERIA. I need to do the same for The Snows of Kilimanjaro, by the way, but in deference to you I won't start on this unless I have the time to fix incoming links in the same setting. Nick Adams was an even simpler case, and it's the very essence of WP:D: Foo should never redirect to Foo (term). This is unnecessary disambiguation, which also goes against WP:CONCISE. And NCBOOKS applies to this one too. I didn't create discussion on the talk pages because these were simple cases of compliance with established naming conventions. Moves can be bold too. Does that clarify things? I regret that I lack the conciseness of Hemingway with this somewhat long-winded explanation. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ Alright, there shouldn't be any more links to the dab left from the moves. The WLH for In Our Time still shows some links at the moment, but I've personally checked them all and verified that they're false positives, echoes from before the navbox was updated. This is taking even longer than usual, but the WLH should be updated in not too long. Regardless, all of the links are working. By the way, you may be interested in my RM for The Garden of Eden; that case isn't so clear, so I've brought it to a discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the belated response (I was offline for a few days) and thanks for fixing all the links! That was my biggest concern and I knew I wouldn't get to it myself for a while. Your reasoning makes sense, I simply gulped a little when I saw the change knowing that there were a fair number of inbound links to IoT. I'll comment on The Garden of Eden at the talk page. Victoria (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hi, did you not realize that there was a deletion review ongoing? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not, until it was brought up at the RM. It appears the AfD wasn't tagged as such. I don't see any harm in simply holding off on closing the RM until the DRV has resolved, however. --BDD (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please then temporarily withdraw it as nom as Ymblanter has I think suggested. There's no urgency to move it. I created Lingdian (band) in May 2013 and it was disambiguated (band) without the heavens falling in for 8 months. What I am less than happy with is this arm twisting (not from you), "then create Lingdian (company)" ... no, this is ridiculous, there shouldn't be bullying of editors to "create an article" in this manner when article titles are not the basis of disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've undone my WP:BRD and closed your RM as WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hey BDD, I am just popping by to say hello and thank you for mentoring me at the beginning of the year. I wanted to apologize for disappearing so abruptly this at the beginning of 2013. In February, I had a major health scare which left me unable to edit until March. For that reason, I totally missed your last edit to the mentorship page. My health issues continued into the middle of this year and are just slowing down now, but unfortunately college is taking up a large amount of my time these days. With that being said, I'm doing my best to get back into the swing of things on Wikipedia, but I definitely wanted to stop by to say that your efforts in mentorship have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated and I'm glad to have had the chance to support your successful RfA. I hope you have a wonderful night! MJ94 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad I was able to help. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor. 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, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yadkin River bridges
You closed the debate on a proposed move. Your reasoning made me wonder if you would approve of a split into the two articles,User:Vchimpanzee/Wil-Cox Bridge and User:Vchimpanzee/Yadkin River Veterans Memorial Bridge, that are currently drafts, which I wrote to satisfy the concerns one of those commenting.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those look fine to move to mainspace. I'd be bold and leave others to propose a merge if they feel it's necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't do it. the articles already exist and the usual process doesn't work. I put the template at the top which puts them in the list of articles waiting for review, but I've spent enough time on the help pages to know how that's going to work.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bah. Too much bureaucracy; they don't need to run through AfC. I can move those over the existing redirects and add main templates to each section of Yadkin River bridges. Do you want me to leave redirects from your userspace? --BDD (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to go with the non-controversial move option even though there hasn't really been discussion. Go ahead and leave the redirects for now because I don't know how all this works.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the idea is to eventually do away with Yadkin River bridges.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Let's see how that works. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

bilal khan
You recently did a TM on the Bilal Khan article. Normally I would say that this is indeed uncontroversial, but there is significant history with this article. The article about the actor has been repeatedly hijacked, recreated and salted, and the AFD and other discussions were massively sock filled, by fans of a semi(non)-notable singer with the same name. It was moved to the (actor) title, without redirect and the normal title salted to try and avoid the repeated re-creation of the singer article and to more firmly disambiguate. By making this change, you just un-redlinked a number of links that mean to go to the singer but now go incorrectly to this actor. Things have been quiet for a while, so I am not sure what you should do, but having those redlinks suddenly go the wrong place seems like reason to revert to me? In any case, just letting you know, please do as you think appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of those incoming links are ghosts from Coke Studio (Pakistan). I've already removed the singer from the template. Of the dozen or so listed incoming links, I'd guess that few if any actually contain wikilinks to the title. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did not even think about the template. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately the WLH can be very slow in updating links from navboxes. I'll give it another look in a day or two to see if there are any problematic links. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia national association football team
Hey BDD, it's my fault for not acting sooner, but I was working on a close for the RM at Australia national association football team and was going to relist it. It's over the 7 days, but discussion was continuing and I think a clearer consensus may emerge one way or the other if it continues. Would you consider relisting? I apologize if I'm stepping on your toes, you know how much I respect your judgement.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry for the conflict. No need to apologize, and you know I respect your judgment as well, but I'm really not sure relisting would be very fruitful in this case. The request ran for a few days beyond the usual listing period, and there was a ton of discussion among many users in that time. I can't see what another week would produce besides more talking past each other and maybe a few extra votes trickling in on each side. Were you just going to do a simple relist or make some comments about specific things you were looking for? And did you think either side's arguments were more policy-based such that you were leaning towards a close? --BDD (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to relist and leave comment asking participants (including those who'd already commented) to stick to specific policies, guidelines and precedents (ie, address the neutrality issue, primary topic status or otherwise, agreed upon style guidelines, etc). I don't put much stock in the !votes that boil down to just insisting that there be a discussion of all national teams together, especially one at WikiProject Football, which would be even more insular than the RM. At least, I think they're much weaker than, say, comments that argue that this is a neutrality/systemic bias issue, as that's one of the core policies. A good number of the oppose votes were like that. Perhaps it's just my wishful thinking, but my hope was that after that, we'd see more viable arguments and a clearer consensus one way or the other.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Herrick (band)
So, regarding the heading, why delete the redirect? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid creating redirects that wouldn't hold up at RfD. Given this recent result, I didn't think it would be too useful to link a user page to the article, even as part of an automated process (technical nitpick: I declined to leave a redirect as part of the move but didn't go and specifically delete anything). The user could re-establish the redirect, but if there's a decent chance it would get deleted, why bother? And even if there were external links incoming, that's not really how userspace is supposed to be used anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I would ask you to revisit Australia national association football rename
The people opposing the move had no policy based rationale for blocking this, other than "This should be a Wikiproject Association Football decision." This sort of Wikiproject control over things has been repeatedly rejected by ArbCom. Beyond which, it ingrains WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS into the project, sends a negative message to female contributors, suggests WP:V is not applicable, WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOV can be overridden by POV pushing that one gendered by rule team should be superior to the other. Closes should be based on arguments towards policy, not based on people claiming that their Wikiproject should have the say. --LauraHale (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Laura, but you're not looking at this move objectively. Yes, it's true that some editors were essentially making the "let the WikiProject decide" argument, and that's a junk argument. You may be familiar with WikiProject Birds' insistence on title-case capitalization for bird articles, which I oppose, or at least gripe about, at any opportunity. But the opposers were not the only ones making junk arguments. The accusations of sexism were uncalled for there, and some of the name-calling thereof was really beneath the standards of dialogue we ought to aim for. Furthermore, it's simply not true to say that there is no policy-based rationale for opposing the request. PRIMARYTOPIC is a plenty legitimate reason, which to a certain extent overrides PRECISE and certainly doesn't inherently contradict NPOV. And I really don't understand your appeal to V. In the discussion, you mentioned that it's "verifiable" that there are men's and women's teams, but that seemed a quintessentially straw man argument. Literally no one was arguing that there is no women's team.
 * Look, I'm probably more sympathetic to your overall argument than the oppose voters. If I were against the move on the merits, I would've voted instead of closing. But there's a larger conversation that needs to happen here. Wikipedia follows usage in other sources, so is systemic bias ok if present in those sources? I don't think there's a right or easy answer to that question. Where we have articles on a country's men's and women's teams, I wouldn't be upset to see a broader decision that they should be named explicitly, perhaps with a dab at the base title. At the same time, I'm not sure I would participate in that discussion. There were junk arguments on both sides of this RM, but there were also some very good ones on both sides. That's no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Convert
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Convert. 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, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Menorca
Thanks for relisting. Should the addition to proposal go before or after your relisting signature? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After. The RM bot looks for the first signature in the nomination to determine listing. --BDD (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dominican Convent High School
I think the original title was better: as the article itself says, there are two Dominican Convent High Schools in Zimbabwe alone, so Dominican Convent High School,Harare was in fact a necessary disambiguation. Babakathy (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But since we don't have an article on that school, the old disambiguation page just wasn't very useful. In fact, disambiguation pages with only one blue link are eligible for speedy deletion. If the other Dominican Convent High School is mentioned in another page—for North America, schools are typically mentioned in school district articles—we could link to that page in a hatnote. But as it stands, anyone looking for information on the other school is going to be disappointed one way or another. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Super 8 Worldwide
Commonname does not apply as the name of the chain itself does not carry the word Motel at all anymore. The logo, literature, brand name, brochures, headers, everything must by franchise agreements with Wyndham Worldwide be switched to the new name of Super 8. Without any Motel at the end. In fact on annual inspection a Super 8 that has the old logo or any mention of "motel" in the Super 8 name will lose points which can cause it to fail the inspection.Camelbinky (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, I really don't think you know what WP:COMMONNAME means, especially compared to official names. Your argument perhaps would be relevant if Wikipedia owned a Super 8 motel (!), but we are not beholden to the company's practice. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Corinthos
Was there a consensus to move? Suddenly, the title should be "Carly Corinthos Jacks", unless you made a mistake. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Sometimes I accidentally write different results in edit summaries and the pages themselves, though I think I usually catch them. No, I didn't find consensus there: it looks like only the nominator supported. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In Love and War
Just to let you know that I changed the move request slightly in closing it, reversing the order of the two artists, as I've mentioned at Talk:In Love and War (Francis Magalona and Ely Buendia album). If that's a problem, please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy requests
Hello BDD, could you send me a copy of these deleted articles: Thanks in advance. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4DL programming language
 * Beatnik programming language
 * HQ9+
 * Let's see. I had to follow a trail of redirects from the first one, but it appears to still exist at User:Lar/ToDo/Cliff Biffle. I'm sure Lar would appreciate the assistance. The other articles are now accessible at User:Rezonansowy/Beatnik programming language and User:Rezonansowy/HQ9+. Good luck. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for COIN assistance
Hi. Back in June you did an impressively deep dive into a COIN report that I still appreciate to this day. I'm curious if you might be willing to do another one here? The issues aren't quite the same but in both cases there's no way to resolve the allegations fairly without sinking some time into it. I'm not asking for your help because of how you came out in that prior dispute, I'm only asking because of your willingness to put in the considerable but necessary effort. If you feel my request is improper canvassing, or if you don't have the time or inclination to help, then perhaps you can ping another administrator. From my last experience I know COIN can be dreadfully slow. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, but I believe they were meant for DGG rather than me. I haven't done any work at COIN before, but he may be able to help. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh, thanks for the heads up! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at it now .  DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sof\xC3\xADa Vergara nominated for deletion
You may want to participate in the deletion discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9. &mdash; rybec   22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (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) 08:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Herostratus (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585627563 your edit] to James O'Keefe 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) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * decreased from conservative political organizations following this CNN incident. dead link|
 * NPR-Slayer, What Kind of Journalist is This?"], The Wrap (covering Hollywood), March 9, 2011

Please comment on Talk:The Simpsons
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Simpsons. 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) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)