User talk:BDD/Archive 12

Rivers
Unfortunately a lot of those river stubs were created at a time when it seemed practical to try to mass generate content on wikipedia and get us working towards addressing systematic bias. Unfortunately nobody wants to really edit articles on German and Brazilian rivers so they're rendered virtually useless in the meantime. There's far too many for me to try to expand. Believe me I'd probably have them all deleted nowadays, I recently tried to delete some African stubs on villages in attempting to cleanup and improve general quality. Thanks for at least stumbling across the rivers. If you want anything expanded let me know, but I don't speak either German or Portuguese... I can usually figure something out though and if it doesn't read right I can get somebody to proof it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Move requests
You really need to stop !voting on them, since once you do there's nobody to close them no, but seriously, look at that backlog!! Eww! Red Slash 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm working on it now. When it's this bad, I'm not averse to IAR closes where I've participated and the outcome is clear, but generally that low-hanging fruit gets picked by someone else first. I made a ridiculous proposal to address the chronic backlog back in September, but it was kind of ill-timed anyway since the backlog actually cleared out very shortly thereafter. I don't think it's been clear since, though! --BDD (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Boston and Louisville
I notice that you recently brought up Boston in a Talk page discussion. I also just noticed that is a redirect to Boston. In contrast, I notice that is a redirect to Louisville, Kentucky. Is there any rule about which form is preferred for such city names on Wikipedia? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a result of the debacle that is WP:USPLACE, which only allows a few US place names to omit the state name. Problem is, USPLACE doesn't mean other cities can't still be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so there are a great deal of redirects like Boise, Louisville, Spokane, Virginia Beach. Generally it's wrong for Foo, Bar to redirect to Foo, but USPLACE throws policies like WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME right out the window. There are periodic attempts to trash it in favor of how we name, say, any other populated place, but these always seem to end in no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Boston appears to be similar to Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. But Bakersfield, Fort Lauderdale, Memphis, Nashville, and Spokane are similar to Louisville. Thanks for the pointer to WP:USPLACE. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Merge: KBJO-LD with KNPN-LD3
Thank you for the reply and offer for help on merging KNPN-LD3 with KBJO-LD. Since I have no experience in merging articles myself, how do I accomplish this? TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you want the longer KNPN-LD3 to be merged into KBJO-LD, the first step is to determine how much of the existing KBJO-LD article will be reflected in the new combined article. You probably know the subject better than I do; how redundant is the content of the articles at this point? --BDD (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not very much, the KBJO-LD article has only a few commonalities, just a short history. It's a little more in-depth on the KNPN-LD3 article, in regards to the station's predecessor existence as a subchannel on KNPN and as a cable-only WB 100+/CW Plus station. TVtonightOKC (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have thought of this before. Why don't I merge by just moving everything from KNPN-LD3 into KBJO-LD and let you look over and clean up the results? Sound good? --BDD (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll see to the incoming links and administrative aspects if you can get rid of any redundant information in the merged article. Just let me know if I can do anything else. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All the duplicate information has been removed, leaving only the source content from the KNPN-LD3 article. Thanks for the help. TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting Stars RM reopened as multi-move
Hello BDD

You recently participated in a WP:RM debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song). This message is to inform you that I have closed that debate as no move, but I have reopened it as a potential multi-move request, after a majority of those participating in the discussion appeared to support that alternative. Please participate in the new debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song) if you wish to do so. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco. 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) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born
You kindly told me that I am pedantic. Thanks for the word. What I might call pedantic is not to show the composer's version of the title in the article at all, by holy MOS and holy consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You suggested that A Boy Was Born and A Boy was Born are somehow different compositions, that it's incorrect to refer to the former when the latter is "right." If I told you I had just listened to "rEcOvErY" by Justin Bieber, would you tell me no, such a song doesn't exist? I would hope not. And if the MOS said that's how articles should be titled, then that's exactly what we would do. If you want to change the MOS, you're welcome to try. You're far from the only one who thinks we should defer to sources on matters of style; I'm sure such a proposal would attract some support. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you read the article and/or what Alfietucker explained about Britten possibly wanting the two capital "B" with a lowercase "w" because it's close to his initials. Whatever Britten's reasons, that is the version which is published. To deviate from it - by a "W" instead of a "w" - seems pedantic to me. - We will not change the MOS before Christmas, but I would like to see that a common name by the creator is acceptable. The discussion is open. - The question to be answered before Christmas is already twice on the Boy talk (which I don't want to blow up more): how can the article explain, at least once, that Britten's published version IS different from the MOS version? I started the article on Britten's 100th birthday to honour him, and wanted it for Christmas. At the moment it looks like I failed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have to resort to such speculation to support your position, I'm afraid you won't go far with it. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get what you think is OR. The piece is published A Boy was Born, fact. The sources I used name it that way, fact. Thanks for listening, I turn to other matters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This speculation about maybe he capitalized intentionally to reflect his own name. If you can back up that sort of assertion with reference to reliable sources, that may be worth a commonsense exception to MOS:CT. Otherwise, we'll have to yield to the MOS. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, that was Alfietucker's, I asked if you read it. - Thank you for typing "commonsense" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very flattering of you, Gerda, but I must admit I was rather slow-witted when I suggested the alliterative "B-B" of the title - it didn't occur to me that it might have been a deliberate "chime" with Britten's own initials. It's certainly a compelling theory (though I wonder if Britten would have been drawn to the "B-B" alliteration only subconsciously), but unless we can find someone who actually published such a suggestion, then it's what Wikipedia would call WP:OR and it would therefore be inadmissible. :-( Well, I'll keep an eye out in case we can find such a source to confirm this insight. Meanwhile, Gerda, I salute your insight! Alfietucker (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Help_desk
Hi, there is a user querying an article deletion you made at this helpdesk thread. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Question for you about a page deletion
Hello. I don't really know much about how Wikipedia works, and this is my first time ever trying to contact someone, so forgive me if this is the wrong thread or location to contact you about this.

Will you please re-upload the St. Thomas' Episcopal School Pipe Band page?

I saw some user claimed that only Grade I bands are notable, but that is simply not the case. I also saw a user mentioned that the pipe band in question failed the WP:Band criteria. I looked up what that was and it is my contention is that the St. Thomas' Episcopal School Pipe Band does, in fact, satisfy the criteria of WP:Band, specifically on conditions #1, #7, and #9.

Please let me know how best to go about getting the page restored.

Thanks. PersonABC (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC) PersonABC
 * Hi PersonABC, I think your best bet would be to have this page as a userspace draft, where you could work on it until you can fully demonstrate its notability, at which time it could become an article again. A page that looks just like the one that was deleted is unlikely to be kept again. If I restored a copy to your userspace, would you be willing to improve it? --BDD (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello BDD. Yes, please. A userspace draft sounds like an excellent idea so that I, and others, may reform the article into one that overwhelmingly meets the Wiki standards. How should I go about locating the userspace link for the page? 98.198.59.34 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page will be at User:PersonABC/St. Thomas' Episcopal School Pipe Band. If you're that user, you should know that you're not logged in right now, so your IP address is visible. If that's a problem, I can fix it. You'll be able to edit the draft without being logged in, however. --BDD (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

RfD closing
About your closing of RfD:T:ITN_BOX.
 * I find it strange that you did do & mention your vote counting without any qualification or motivation. This is sloppy, and I don't see why it would be acceptable.
 * I find it questionable that you introduce "based in policy" for the keep-arguments at all, and in this way. There were few policies mentioned at all, and by even fewer contributors. And then again some of these policies were commented upon or even declared wrong in the situation (possibly by me). So this "based in policy" leaves few substantial weight. In numbers: three policies were linked to by two editors, one policy was rebuked twice (and I discard Nyttend's, see below). Then again, your approach (just mention a policy is enough) prevents arguments about or against using that policy. Your route is entering the speedy close area, where just mentioning policies is enough. But an XfD exists to see new and specific arguments; still you did not address, use or even weigh one single counter argument. If arguments would not matter, the RfD page header should have said so.
 * Then I read the astonishing "RfD practice" argument. First of all this is an injection of new arguments by the closer. Second, how is anyone else allowed to introduce WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in an XfD (the other stuff here being: RfDs)? How could anyone discuss otherstuff RfDs without the argument being thrown out, as actually is longstanding RfD practice, for good reasons?
 * btw, it reads like you actually tallied Nyttends argument as a "keep" value. Another otherstuffexists allowed in? Again, how on earth are we supposed to discuss that, while it is deemed not an argument at all, for good reasons?
 * So while it should not be in the closing argument at all, I contest the statement it contains. The "RfD practice" as you mention does not exist. This is more like cherry picking. Nor by numbers, nor by arguments, this is "practice". And stunningly, this is circular reasoning: "RfD is closed this way because other RfDs are closed this way" (which others, btw?).


 * A few weeks ago closed this RfD. You must have read this, because you wrote about "RfD practice". It went to DRV, but for now it is enough to read the closing arguments: there is the promise (and lecturing), that when nominated individually, there can be and will be a careful reading of the arguments; not a wholesale approach. As I predicted, such a promise of due process when only it was brought up differently was idle (for starters, because a closer can not promise anything for future XfD treatment). Your closing shows I was right, the promise was idle. I begin to find it appalling that now a second experienced closer/admin is throwing out specific arguments unused as if unread. If one does not process the arguments provided, please refrain from closing. One can not argue in an XfD when the closer throws out editor's arguments at will and injects their own, those being out of reach for XfD contributors for being out of topic, out of reasoning, and out of time (added afterwards).
 * As said, this is a 2nd time after the Thryduulf closure mentioned. Makes me feel arguing is useless. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not make any promises in my RfD closure. I simply suggested that individual nominations were more likely to reach a consensus (one way or the other) than batch nominations. As this individual nomination was adjudged to have reached a consensus, that prediction seems to have been correct in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * re Thryduulf. You wrote "giving a specific rationale for each nomination". Still with this single nomination and the rationales, they were not used by the closer, again. And btw, the outcome for this RfD was not "consensus". -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Specific rationales for the nomination were given, the discussion resulted in a consensus. You disagreeing with the consensus that was reached is not the same as there not being a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not address any of my OP remarks here. -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I ask BDD to read my notes and to respond. I propose reconsidering the closing reasoning & so the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, DePiep, please pardon the belated response. I hope any holiday celebrations you may have participated in were enjoyable. Now, to address your concerns. First, I'm not sure why you'd be so surprised that I'd allude to a vote count. WP:NOTAVOTE aside, it's rare for a discussion to be closed contrary to majority opinion, at least in my experience. Really, I only mentioned the numbers because a 3/2 split could also be called no consensus (or even delete), depending on arguments. Perhaps my reference to "policy" was too broad, but "RfD practice" really doesn't have anything to do with OSE. I was referring to the criteria at WP:RFD which, while not marked as policy, have been built by consensus and constitute stable guidelines for RfD closers. I believe I summarized these in my closing statement, which is that a redirect needs to be harmful, misleading, or seriously unlikely to be used to be deleted. Redundancy with other redirects, as the nominator argued, has never been a successful reason for deletion. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. Coming to your arguments, you suggested the redirect was not a typo. At least by the standard definition for the term, this is simply incorrect. That leaves us with your "mainspace cleanup" argument which, as was pointed out in the discussion, is more an argument against all pseudo-namespace redirects than this one. I didn't throw out that argument, but it couldn't hold up to the arguments in favor either. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, and yes my days are OK. For me, practicing patience is a form of constructivene contribution too ;-). Will read & reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family name
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Family name. 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, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

One of your closes
Hi BDD. Thanks for closing things. I think you may have got a word wrong in this one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Codename Lisa/What if the characters of Friends TV series were Wikipedians?. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure did. Thanks for noticing! MfD is so often a string of deletes it's easy to slip into autopilot. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Haile Selassie
An editor has asked for a Move review of Haile Selassie. 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. Simfan34 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Greiner
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bill Greiner. 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, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am New here
Hello i am Niko. i am new to this site and still trying to get my head around this site. How are you? May everyone have a happy new year. Anyone who wants to chat about whatever can does so on my page. (Mudak568 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Davao
Hello BDD. Recently you closed Talk:Zamboanga City and you participated at Talk:Davao City so you must be familiar with this set of issues. We now have Davao remaining as a redirect to Davao City, after the move discussion for the latter ended with no consensus. I was told by User:R'n'B that Davao should not be set as a redirect to Davao (disambiguation). He cited WP:MDP. So what is your opinion of a move of Davao (disambiguation) to Davao? I am unsure if this is controversial or not, otherwise I would just do it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, this is your call as the closer. The question of primary topic was raised in the discussion; since Davao redirected to Davao City, the status quo was that the city was primary topic for the term. Some participants in that discussion disagreed with that status quo. If you think there's consensus against there being a primary topic, Davao (disambiguation) should be moved to Davao (R'n'B was correct that simply redirecting the latter to the former was improper). Otherwise, I suppose Davao will have to remain as it is, like the many WP:USPLACE-mandated redirects such as Boise, Spokane, Virginia Beach, etc. I'm not sure how this works with MOS:PHIL, however. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I went ahead and moved Davao (disambiguation) to Davao. If there is any protest, a new WP:RM discussion can be opened. It's unclear how much sway MOS:PHIL should have since it shouldn't override general policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
Thanks for the words in the move request closing statement. I plan to nominate the article for FA review, and this formal consensus on the title should be of great help. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you take a look at this requested move?
Hi BDD, I noticed your involvement in the requested moves, and I was hoping that as an admin that you would take a look this requested move and help to close it, which has been open since 19 December 2013 and the last valuable contribution was on 23 December 2013? Thank you very much. Starship.paint (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus to me. ✅ --BDD (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you be my mentor?
Dear BDD, My name is Anna. :) I saw your name listed as a mentor for the Guild of Copy Editors and was wondering if you still might be willing to take on another mentee, who is also a librarian like you are. :) I'm learning wikitext and local policies and I'm pretty good with English grammar: I've got a B.A. in English and I'd worked as a technical editor before becoming an English teacher. I saw in the Signpost recently that the GOCE is doing a backlog elimination drive this month and thought that could be a good way to kickstart the new year as a volunteer. :) I hope to hear from you soon. All the best, Msannakoval (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anna! I'm not mentoring anyone at the moment, so I think I could take you on. It sounds like you're in pretty good shape as is, but head on over to User:BDD/Mentorship/Msannakoval and we'll talk a bit about what you want from the mentorship. As you may have noticed, it's not a very structured process, so I find it's most useful to figure this out first. Looking forward to working with you! --BDD (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, BDD. It means more than you know. :) --Msannakoval (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)
Please provide your opinion on the alternate proposal to move the article in question to Confederate Arizona. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't really make up my mind there. You can consider me neutral on that question. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgia (country)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgia (country). 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, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Carry On films articles
As closing admin of this discussion, please could you give your opinion as to whether the possibilities of a re-merge were previously given due consideration at the previous discussion, and whether it is appropriate to open this debate. Discussion was opened at Talk:Carry On (franchise) by an editor uninvolved by the earlier discussion, but other involved editors wish to avoid any further discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing
Hi BDD. Thanks for closing Template_talk:Kim_dynasty_(North_Korea). Good close. Yes, my capital D in dynasty was a typo, and well ignored. Agree, minor adjustments of template names like that are very unimportant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem
I've tagged Nevada State Library and Archives as a copyright violation and listed it at Copyright problems/2014 January 9. I'm not sure why you saw fit to resurrect this article from redirection last month; but I don't think it can stand in its current form, and I'm fairly sure that one of the copyvio investigators will delete it. If you think the topic deserves an article, I recommend starting one from scratch (perhaps on a temporary page in the Draft space, according to the instructions on the copyvio tag). Deor (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Romani people in Croatia
Hi BDD,

Thank you for closing the move discussion for Romani of Croatia. I noticed that you moved the article to Romani people of Croatia rather than what was proposed and supported (Romani people in Croatia). Was this alteration intentional?

Neelix (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Joy moved the article again. I don't see the "effective consensus" referred to in that edit summary. I'll revert and leave a notice with Joy. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, right back atcha - you should know better than to interpret such a move discussion as a clear consensus for Neelix's option despite the fact people completely failed to answer my questions about of/in. This level of bureaucratic thinking is frankly astounding - the mantra is that we're not supposed to think of move discussions as votes, yet you as the closing admin utterly ignored half the discussion. Sure, implicitly telling me to go away is an efficient option, but it's against the spirit of the policy. So I assumed that you just missed the fact that there was no real consensus to change the "of", and adjusted that. Clearly I was wrong. You decided that telling me explicitly to shut up already is the productive course of action. *facepalm* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you asking editors questions that they don't answer is "discussion" I need to take into account? Lack of an answer can be an answer too, the effect of which is that you were the only one supporting that "of" title. Can you honestly say that if you were the closing admin and another editor was advocating for that position that you would've found consensus for it? --BDD (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In any case, I'm sorry for venting. But I trust you're aware of the dynamics of this process if we go down this path now. Me opening a new RM over of/in is an exercise in bureaucracy in and of itself. Because it's such a small issue, it will attract even less attention, and even fewer people will want to get involved... Heck, perhaps I'm still being too subtle for my own good. Here's the gist of it: the Croatian constitution relatively recently recognized most minorities' autochthonous status. I've used the phrase " of Croatia" to explicate that - they're not just a group of people that happen to be located in Croatia, they're a characteristic of the country in a way. But right now, with this exception, it looks like the Roma have been demoted back to the lower status. In a way, this would actually mimick the real-world marginalized status of Roma. Yet, it would be supremely depressing for Wikipedia of all places to perpetuate that. And virtually by accident. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not discounting that question on its merits, Joy. It may feel bureaucratic to open a new RM, but it will offer clarity on what's clearly a disputed issue. Editors can ignore (or not notice) your question the first time around, but if you make it the question, we'll either get some opinions on it or we won't—in the latter case, it could be moved anyway. I sympathize with your desire to avoid exercises in bureaucracy, but process is important. There's little sense in even having RMs if anyone can subsequently move the article to fit his or her preferences. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Album
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Album. 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, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete my talk pages please ASAP
Dear Sir

I am going through my talkpages and I will send you a message to delete them ASAP.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Main Page
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Main Page. 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, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding FFD closure
On, could I ask you if you can go into more detail on why you determined this was a no consensus close - eg the weight of the various arguments for and against keeping it, as that is not obvious based on the arguments provided by both sides in light of NFC policy. --M ASEM (t) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I believe that provides a way forward to discuss and improve the rational for image inclusion (particularly highlighting the (supposed) drug use aspects.) --M ASEM (t) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

G8 deletion of Talk:LGBT rights under international law
Hey. User:Psychonaut was, I believe, the person who requested the restoration initially since the RfC was still being looked over. This was back in November and it seems like nothing else has been needed for it since. In either case, I would defer to him; if it should be deleted this time I'm fine doing that. Wizardman 23:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. 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) 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving the "Living in America" article. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Page move: Elizabeth Freeman (slave)
Please see talk page discussion of page move for Elizabeth Freeman (slave). Joja lozzo  05:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

RM amended
Thanks, you are clearly correct - RM template at Talk:John Adams (American football) adjusted to propose John Adams (offensive lineman) as per your post. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ASP → ASR closure
Hello,

Thank you for taking your time to close RM discussion at Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo. In your closing comment you wrote "I would also strongly recommend editors cool down and wait a few months before revisiting the issue." I don't know if you noticed, but I announced that I will prepare appropriate reports regarding nominator's concerns related to "voting bloc". Was your comment also related to my announcement?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was more in response to the name-calling and personalization of comments that occurred in that discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. 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) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg
I am considering opening a deletion review of this decision. I feel your closure gave insufficient weight to WP:NFCC policy, particularly item 8. Arguments that removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article were not refuted. I am obligated to contact you before listing a DRV, and asking you to reconsider. ✄ (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct that this argument was not refuted because, at least in this case, it wasn't refutable. As I stated in my closing statement, #8 can be a pretty subjective criterion when editors don't clearly agree on it one way or another. Go to DRV if you must, but I'd also urge you to wait for the result of the NFCR discussion, as the file will be deleted anyway if there's consensus not to use it in the article. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be taking this forward at DRV because NFCR normally takes months on end. ✄ (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Genome Wager / The Genome Wager
The reason I created the redirect is that people were discussing it as being called "Genome Wager" where the original redirect was "The Genome Wager". I told Rfd I was adding salt to the fire and I quite expected it to be deleted.

Oddly enough I actually have a first edition of The Selfish Gene but not on me right now. I thought it was kinda a little bit relevant in that genes kinda battle themselves not on purpose but kinda the ones that win survive, that was Dawkins' argument. But I am quite happy for this to go delete, no problem. I do appreciate the hard work you do, I have been busy gnoming at Eileen Blair and Radio 4 UK Theme and others, mostly ejust checking references and stuff like that. I also put in a couple of piccies at The World's End (film) and March, Cambridgeshire.

I really do appreciate the hard work you do. I may not always agree with you but I know how hard you work to make Wikipedia better, you are a star. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK
Please don't do this. That is the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing, per WP:INTDABLINK. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sydney derby
Hi there, I can understand, but disagree with how you deleted the Battle of the Bridge (AFL) article, but you've stumbled across a bit of an inter-code battle between Australian football fans and soccer/rugby league fans. Coverage of AFL in the media is at saturation level, so we can almost always find sources to verify almost anything. Then it comes down to determining if it is significant or routine coverage, which is a personal judgment call. Anyway, I will be recreating the article as a redirect to Rivalries in the Australian Football League. Can you please userfy or move to draft space do that I can retrieve the refs to incorporate into the parent rivalry article. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ See User:The-Pope/Battle of the Bridge (AFL). By the way, I don't think you were actually saying this, but I can assure you that my love of soccer didn't influence the AfD decision, nor did I know about the battle you were referring to. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no, I wasn't accusing you of bias, I'm fully aware it was a borderline article. The AFL project is generally more lenient than most others, especially WP:Soccer/Football. Whatever you do, don't look at Talk:Soccer in Australia or Talk:Football in Australia unless you want to get depressed about the future chances of collaboration, reconciliation & compromise ! The-Pope (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
hi. i'm ilovehj please help me I want to recreate the page Hossein Jafari   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovehj (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ilovehj, I can't just recreate the page as it was, since it was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. However, I could restore a copy in your userspace (i.e., at User:Ilovehj/Hossein Jafari) or in draft space (i.e., Draft:Hossein Jafari). Either way, this would not make it an active Wikipedia article again. You (or others) would have to actively work on the page, so ideally it could be improved and be a live article again. If you don't, the page may be deleted again as a stale draft. Are you willing to do this? If so, would you rather personally host it or have it in draft space? It doesn't really matter which, but in draft space, it's more likely that you may get other people helping you. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be this is a pretty obvious sock of, who now seems to be doing some revenge blanking--Jac 16888 Talk 17:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)