User talk:BDD/Archive 15

Because you thanked me
22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Stanley, Wisconsin
Hi-you proposed a move on the renaming of the Stanley, Wisconsin article. Please take a look at the Stanley, Wisconsin talk page. I made a comment about the proposed change. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. Since the city is almost entirely in Chippewa County, I think the proposed title is fine, especially with redirects to accommodate alternate forms. But the overall point I'm trying to make is that there are two Stanley, Wisconsins, and neither seem to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I had another idea for an alternative, which I'll leave on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Women's U-19 Championship
You closed Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 20 closed as "moved", but than listed the category in the wrong section on WP:CFDW in this edit, and as a result the categories were deleted and not renamed. Could you fix this? Armbrust The Homunculus 19:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Crap. I knew I'd screw something up; CfD is so complicated. I'm on it. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; talk 09:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

"Cosmetic" relisting
BDD,

Please stop relisting RfD discussions just to reduce the appearance of backlog. As we learned from the Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, creating the illusion of no backlog doesn't actually make the backlog go away - and hiding it, if anything, makes the backlog worse. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure no one will die from this. I realize that it amounts to kicking the can down the road, but emptying daily pages from the main WP:RFD makes the backlog easier to navigate. You alleged elsewhere that it could reduce the chances that an admin will close the discussions. Well, I hate to say it, but there's very little admin involvement at RfD as is, and that was the case before I started this practice. I'm upfront about the fact that this only superficially shrinks the backlog. But hey, I'm about to go on vacation for a few weeks anyway. I suppose we can see for ourselves what happens. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dire straits ambiguity
Please see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 4. Compare to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=611961467&oldid=611869075 the comment by User:Dohn Joe] on my talk page. I am now unsure if I was reading your opinion correctly, since I thought you wanted to redirect to your new DAB at Dire Straits (disambiguation). If it's truly uncertain what everyone meant, I might undo my closure and reopen the RfD discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I wanted to "keep" Dire straits as is, redirecting to Dire Straits. I added a hatnote there to the dab I created, and I was saying that should clear up any potential confusion for readers. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

RfD
I'll try to spend a bit of time on RfD while you're away. I have done a bit there in the past, but tended to stick with the easy ones, and shy away from those where four participants say delete, retarget to A, keep, retarget to B, because it seems hard to make a decision which isn't effectively a supervote. Any advice you can give before you go will be welcome, though I know this is last-minute. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Carl J. Strikwerda
I deleted the PROD tag on Carl J. Strikwerda after adding two inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One source fails WP:ROUTINE and the other one is not independent. Now being considered for deletion at AfD.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Beef Jerky listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beef Jerky. Since you had some involvement with the Beef Jerky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Anthony Brooks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Anthony Brooks. 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, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free! (anime). Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Walsh (game show contestant) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Walsh (game show contestant). Since you had some involvement with the Tom Walsh (game show contestant) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AldezD (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy contestant) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Walsh (Jeopardy contestant). Since you had some involvement with the Tom Walsh (Jeopardy contestant) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AldezD (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Walsh (Jeopardy). Since you had some involvement with the Tom Walsh (Jeopardy) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AldezD (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy!) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Walsh (Jeopardy!). Since you had some involvement with the Tom Walsh (Jeopardy!) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AldezD (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bolden!
It doesn't appear that you ever retargeted Bolden!, as you said you did in your close of its RfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Thanks for noticing, and for letting me know. I've fixed it. --BDD (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. 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, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

RM notice
A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at Talk:Mustang horse. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Block request
Hi BDD, I created this account only to get my normal account Murrerer unblocked in the German version. I had suggested to move the article about the current 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict from the lemma that it had there, the Israeli name of the military operation. To give an example why I think such names sould be avoided I wrote they are used for propaganda and we wouldn't want to have our article about the holocaust named by the Nazi term "final solution of the Jewish question" either. I think extreme examples often help to see things more clearly. An administrator blocked me permanently, claiming I was playing down the holocaust, something I had never intended. I wrote so and several other administrators agreed. However, the majority started a big group think and confirmed the permanent block. The lemma was later changed as I had suggested by the way. In general my impression of the German version of this project is that administrators are very rude, especially towards new users. I don't want to use an account that is in any way associated with holocaust denial, even if absurdly and erroneously, so I would like you to permanently block both my accounts. I already had another account some years ago and in a few cases I had real life contacts with people I met here and I now even run a wiki professionally. At one point a lady called me and she was nearly crying and desperate because she had used her real name for her account and other users had insulted her for something I don't remember exactly but work related and in fact it had not been so clever, just it escalated and they had not allowed her to get her account deleted, so she was afraid she would get ridiculed and have problems with her job. At that point I realized it's not a good idea to let one's real life interfere too much with some internet project. I can't think of the name I had here, I later changed it to have one I could use in all versions - the one I had in the English version was already taken in the German version or the other way round. At some point I stopped contributing to wikipedia because I didn't like how people were treated in the German version, especially when new users start new articles and then they get quickly deleted and they treat them as if they had committed a crime by not getting everything perfect right at the start. Maybe I will open a new account at some point. Thanks for your help and understanding. Murrererentsperren (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

hello
I left a rather too full reply at my talk page. I was taking a break while things cooled down. I was editing under IP – not as a sock but to avoid the flak – but the address range has been blocked and the investigation is right that they are from my IP provider in Hungary but they blocked me too, so unfortunately I have to be myself again.

Thank you for your kind comments. I have been editing in my gnomesome way – fiddly bits of spelling and stuff like that – under IP. "Yet man is surely born to trouble as the sparks fly upward". Job 5:7 apparently. I am not very Christian (well that is Jewish anyway) but you can't beat the Old Testament for a decent murder, beats Agatha Christie any day of the week (and twice on Sundays). Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Help request
Hi, I've posted a request for help regarding the Momčilo Gavrić biography which I have been involved in improving to B-class some time ago.

I'm having trouble with a very stubborn new editor who believes that his ancestry status ranks higher than the WP:OR framework, and that my requests for proper referencing is some type of insult to his honor (I've gotten some angrily worded e-mails).

Link: WP:ANI (also see the recent edit history of the biography itself)

So far, I haven't gotten any responses here. From your perspective as an administrator, what would be the appropriate thing to do here? - Anonimski (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Philandry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philandry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Redirects for deletion
Since you have closed Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_23 as delete, please delete 11 pages nominated along with it: WikiProject:Bulgaria, WikiProject:East Anglia, WikiProject:Guild of Copyeditors, WikiProject:Medicine, WikiProject:Pollution, Wikiproject:BLP categorization, Wikiproject:Essex, Wikiproject:Photography, Wikiproject:San Francisco 49ers, Wikiproject: Eurovision, Wikiproject:film. These are pseudo namespace subcategory, a related wider nomination can be found here. Thanks, - Cited third page (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ In the future, please tag these pages for deletion to allow for quicker processing. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Division of China
I got invited to comment but looks like the discussion is closed. Was it open just for 7 days, since 7/23/14? Or is my input still needed? Mistakefinder (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mistakefinder. The discussion ran a week beyond the standard seven days, and the page is now a dab page, as you may have seen. If you're not satisfied with the outcome, I can advise you on how to proceed. Otherwise, no need to worry. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok! It looks fine to me. Mistakefinder (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 6 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 6. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CloudComputation $Talk freely CloudTracker$ 04:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leonardo DiCaprio
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Leonardo DiCaprio. 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) 00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Cite book" redirect
In 2012 you participated in a discussion about various "cite x" template redirects (e.g. "Cite journal", "Cite book", etc) at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30. The redirect "" was nominated for deletion yesterday (31 August 2014) and your input into the discussion would be welcome at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Windows 9
You have wrongfully deleted this article 1 please see this http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-9-release-date-news-and-rumours-1029245 Why have you deleted this page ? With Regards --79.125.217.81 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CRYSTAL and Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 11. What I deleted was a redirect, not an article, and it was four months ago. If there are other reliable sources that discuss Windows 9 (and call it such), it may be appropriate now to have an article on the subject. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Language question
Hi, we spoke before about Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793 article. I left the same question in SmokeyJoe talk page, but it looks he is out for some months. My question is that under section "End of Gironde" (at the bottom of the section) I presented reply of commander of National Guard Hanriot as — "Hérault, the people have not risen to hear phrases; they require twenty-four traitors to be given up to them." What he actually said: “Tell your fucking president that he and his Assembly are fucked, and that if within one hour he doesn’t deliver to me the Twenty-two I’m going to blast it”. It is funny, but this reply is making sense of his next order: "Cannoneers, to your guns!". What should it be? (smiling) Respectfully, --Nivose (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nivose, I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to really give you an answer. I registered my opinion about the naming of that article, but I don't really know about the subject. If your issue is with representing Hanriot's harsh language, I don't think that's a problem as long as it's properly sourced. And you could also mention that he has been quoted as saying the milder version. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Quote I used in the article is from Mignet, 1800x - XIX century and not very reliable source. For a long time I've heard that the answer was quite "harsh", but no modern historians presented actual words, except "Cannoneers, to your guns!", until I stumble upon https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/myweb/davidbell/andress.pdf by David Bell (historian) at Princeton University since 2010. Same goes with http://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/french-revolution-quotations/, but I would not cite it as AS. Are there any Wiki rules or guidelines in such cases? --Nivose (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of South-East Ukraine
Whoa! This redirect is *very* problematic and POV! I missed the discussion (despite the fact that I'm the one who objected to the original redirect, nobody bothered to inform me about it) but that is not a sufficient level of discussion for a redirect that controversial, nor is it a representative sample of Wikipedia editors who are active in this topic. It basically looks like someone quickly sneaked this under the radar.

The proposal for this kind of redirect is clearly politically motivated, given the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

And it doesn't make sense. Would you redirect Southeastern United States to Confederate States of America (especially in a situation where the South was rebelling again)? "Novorossiya" was itself an invented propaganda term, back in the 18th century and to redirect a current geographic region to that is just inappropriate. If you really *must* redirect it to something other than "Ukraine" then "Wild Fields" would be much more appropriate.

I'll be undoing the redirect and re-opening the discussion.  Volunteer Marek  15:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Marek, you may certainly start a new discussion, but BRD does not apply to XfD results. Novorossiya will remain the target until consensus decides otherwise. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

RfD on SE Ukraine
Nice to see you back at RfD – been on vacation?

You're dead right you get nowhere with E. European articles. You should see what fun with have in Hungarian ones, you can spend days with reverts changing something from Poszony to Bratislava to Pressburg etc (the same place, but has had different primary names over time, I mean in real life not WP, as it has jumped borders). Aachen might similarly suffer, I don't know. My guiding principle on history articles is to use the name as it was known at the time, and include the others in parens e.g. "Fred the Shred died in Poszony, Hungary (now Bratislava, Slovakia)" – but that appears to be a minority view! So as things become more recent they warm up quicker! I just leave them alone, it is not worth arguing. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Si. Not vacation (not even "holiday")—I moved recently and just haven't been as active on Wikipedia, as you can see. I'm trying to catch up a bit, especially with the RfD backlog. I don't think we're the only ones who recognize Eastern Europe disputes as landmines. I think that's why they just sit around in backlogs until someone is willing to cut the Gordian knot and close them. Good to see you around as well. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. 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, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Oholic
Re Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 11; you closed it as delete. Why is it still there? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Force of habit. Sorry. I'm so used to closing RfDs as delete that I'll sometimes write that when it's not the actual outcome. That one was no consensus. I've fixed it now; I had it right in the initial edit summary and the editing of the redirect itself. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to re-publish new version of deleted page
Hi BDD. I have created a new draft of the page on the human givens movement. You can find it here. This is a substantial rewrite that brings it up to date, gives some more background as well as interesting references to research etc. that informed the approach. I would like to get this published back in its old location. What do I need to do next? Thanks - MIDaffin (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi MIDaffin. You could do it yourself, simply by moving the page to Human givens (note the capitalization; see WP:NCCAPS). At a glance, the sourcing looks good. There's definitely some cleanup I'd do, but it doesn't look like an obvious deletion candidate right off the bat, at least. If you're confident, you can move it yourself. If you don't want User:MIDaffin/Human Givens V2 to be left behind as a redirect, I could move the page for you, as only admins can move pages without leaving a redirect behind. Alternatively, you could tag the redirect with db-g7, and an admin would delete it for you. If you prefer to leave the redirect, that's fine too. Just let me know if you need a hand with that. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update I see there's a dab page at Human givens, though it looks somewhat contrived. You would need an admin to move your page over that, which I'd be willing to do for you. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'd really like, please, is: (1) to know what you think I should clean up (this is my first wikipedia article); (2) to move User:MIDaffin/Human Givens V2 to Human Givens and delete User:MIDaffin/Human Givens V2 afterwards. (IMO the Human givens dab page should go. Can you do that too?)
 * Just checking in on this thread. Please let me know if anything I am asking for is too much/incorrect. MIDaffin (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially if we're going to overwrite that dab, the title should be capitalized as Human givens, not Human Givens, though that can certainly be a redirect. NCCAPS means only proper names should have title-case capitalization. If you'd like, I can just go quickly clean up the things I noticed about the draft article first. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please could you overwrite the dab page and do a redirect from the old to the new page? And please clean up whatever is necessary. Thanks! MIDaffin (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ And you're live at Human givens. No guarantees if this comes up at AfD again, but good luck. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. How will I know if this comes up at AfD again? Is there some way in which I can watch out for such events concerning pages I am interested in? MIDaffin (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still considered the article's creator, so someone nominating the article at AfD should notify you. If they use an automated method of nomination, like Twinkle, this will happen automatically. And yes, there is a way to monitor pages you're interested. It's called a watchlist, and it can be extremely useful. See Help:Watching pages for an overview. The quick version? Click the star next to the "View history" tab on a page. When the star turns blue, the page is on your watchlist. Click "Watchlist" in the top right of the screen when you're logged in, and you'll see a record of recent edits on the pages you watch. (Note that when you watch a page, you'll also see edits to its talk page. It's not possible to watch an article but not its talk page, or vice versa.) Just let me know if you need any more help. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Coup
You deleted this redirect per an RfD. Whilst looking around today, I found Ukrainian Coup d'etat. I imagine this can deleted for the same reasons as the now deleted Ukrainian Coup, without reopening that discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ per WP:NOTBURO. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Isil
Hey! I realize that it was totally logical for you to close this discussion as no consensus. However, I would like to ask that you reconsider what no-consensus means in this case. This redirect previously hosted the disambiguation page, but there was a move discussion. While the normal action after a move discussion is to keep the initial name as a redirect to the moved page, the closer was bold and retargeted the page to the Sun and Moon article. This resulted in an edit war sort of, at which point an editor opened an RfD. However, since there was no consensus, I believe that means that the article should go back to its last stable version, not simply the one at the time the proposal was made. Otherwise, the trick to getting a controversial move done would be to just edit war and hope your "opponent" makes the RfD first, in which case all you have to do is find a no consensus. If this discussion had gone another way it would be one thing, but combined with the fact that the numbers were in favor of the original stable-ish state (not that I'm saying a no-consensus call was wrong) this solution seems to make the most sense. But let me know. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally I'd agree with you, but since there was an RM with official consensus, reverting to the status quo after that is sufficient for me. I've definitely seen situations like those you're alluding to, and that's been discussed a few times at WT:RM, but I don't think that's what happened here. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the move discussion with an official consensus was to move Isil to ISIL (disambiguation) and to have the initial target redirect there. The decision to change it was in no way agreed to in that RM, and was in fact immediately contested.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see now. The history was a bit confusing. I think you're right; I'll fix this in a little bit. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries, believe me I was a bit confused about it too for a while! Thanks for your understanding.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess there weren't too many cooks after all! Good move, BDD! Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 20:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
Thanks for the little nod at WP:RFD. It means a lot to me.

Originally, many years ago, I came to RfD many years ago just to get an R fixed, but over time I realised it is the most fascinating hangout to me because you get all sorts and I am rather a jack of all trades, master of none. I used to hang out at WP:PNT but the French have got wise and don't throw it in like that nowadays, and my Hungarian and Latin is OK for on the útca or via but not for translation. . Often, as happened yesterday, I end up editing articles or translating them or doing template metaprogramming or just straining the vermicelli, I even made a railway template diagram yesterday! Don't you think Casablanca tramway looks a bit nicer?! God knows how I got from RfD to there but I did a bit of trans and the diagrams and refimprove. I like being the backroom boy, and in real life too. So it is really nice to be acknowledged now and again.

So, thanks once again, it means a lot to me. Of course, we will disagree on RfD, that's what it's for. But I know both you and I always WP:AGF. Clever bunch of people there, and I hope with gnoming I make it a bit better, 1 in by 1 in. Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Bogans on the Run for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bogans on the Run is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bogans on the Run until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaesarsPalaceDude (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2014

Talk:The Wandering Songstress
I wonder if you have made a mistake on the closing results last year. One former opposer switched to neutral. Two IPs who opposed were blocked as sockpuppets of one user. There is one valid support vote and no other valid votes (sans neutral). --George Ho (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a while; try a new request. --BDD (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of article disputed
Hi BDD - an npov tag appeared recently at the top of the article I created describing the human givens approach, and I would value your guidance on how to handle this. The tag appears to have been inserted using an account that has subsequently been deleted: User:Doughyblossom. This seems a bit suspicious. Do you think the npov is warranted? What would you recommend I do? The human givens approach exists as a viable school of thought and practice, and as such I think it certainly deserves a page on Wikipedia. Cheers - MIDaffin (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again. That account hasn't been deleted—it just doesn't have a user page. However, it has few contributions. I think "drive-by tagging" can be appropriate in some cases, but this tag appears to have been vague anyway. Your removal of it is fine, and is essentially the R step in the WP:BRD cycle. If the user disputes this further, it should go to discussion. For now, I think you're good. --BDD (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks BDD. This is an interesting little learning curve :) MIDaffin (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservation worldwide and WikiProject Conservation Worldwide
Hello, I've undeleted and  because the RFD was not conducted properly; Oiyarbepsy did not add an RFD tag to the latter page, which is on my watchlist because of my history-merging work on its talk page (which has quite a lot of significant discussion which probably shouldn't be deleted)! I've gone and retargeted both redirects to the protected areas projects. I realize I should probably have asked you first, but in the heat of the moment, I didn't think of that. It also took me a while to figure out precisely what happened. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 07:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it important for to be a cross-namespace redirect? "Conservation Worldwide" is a strange synonym for "Protected areas", but if the WikiProject members are ok with this, I don't mind the former. But it seems very confusing and counterintuitive to have the uppercase variant redirect somewhere else, and in mainspace to boot. Anyone using these as search terms would expect to get to a WikiProject, wouldn't they? --BDD (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I revised so that both point to protected areas. Some at the RfD discussion agreed with that, but everyone was unanimous that it shouldn't point to the article page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad; I meant to redirect the uppercase variant to the WikiProject as well. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy, for doing that. Graham 87 07:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)