User talk:BDD/Archive 2

Why we ever did otherwise
Hi, I caught your comment at Talk:Paul Remy. It is beyond me too, but I think after several months of being sucked into this (following seeing unpleasant treatment of East European and Spanish editors on a tennis RM I admit) are various clarity issues in the guideline pages such as WP:AT. In WP:UE for example the lack of coherent linkage (even a bluelink) between reliable and where reliable is defined as "reliable for the statement made." I won't repeat this ad nauseam, I've just restated for the nth time at Talk:Edouard Deldevez. In one way it doesn't matter if the guideline pages like WP:UE WP:EN are kept ambiguous and contradict the 100,000s of Europe articles on en.wikipedia, since most editors who contribute these articles use sources "reliable for the statement made" in terms of spelling anyway with or without guidelines they either don't know exist or interpret using common sense. But clarity in those guidelines might be a way of passing the remaining 100 "English name" bios to consistency with less aggrevation. An idea anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nudging Talk:Stéphane Charbonneau into close. That only leaves Talk:Dominik Halmosi I believe. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like how User:Mr.Boire put it at the end of that one. It's a shame there's not a great policy way of phrasing this, but most usage without diacritics is either due to (1) dumbing down; (2) typographical limitations; or (3) ignorance. Native forms of names are preferable unless the subject voluntarily anglicizes it (officially or through common usage) or there's deep-seated practice for historical figures (e.g., Christopher Columbus). Once the request at Talk:Eduardo Barragan is wrapped up, I think we can safely proceed with a second request of Halmosi. Take that, WP:systemic bias! --BDD (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought Mr Boire said it quite well. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Your name
Nothing to convoluted, DUCKISJAMMMY is just a combination of my nicknames & initials & DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER my alternative account rather random sounding I know was thought up by The Bushranger when advising me on second accounts. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship
I request that you consider serving as my mentor, since it may help alleviate other users' concerns about my editing, and you have been a source of useful advice on how to collaborate productively. It may be a route to resolving the situation I told you about in the email. Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My response. I appreciate this. Leucosticte (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall having any other accounts besides this one open at this time. All the old ones have been indef-blocked. I opened this account circa June 12, after a 21-month complete absence from Wikipedia. Most of my problems on Wikipedia have centered around XfDs. Therefore, what I propose is that I list the XfDs in which I'm participating in this page, User:Leucosticte/Deletion debates, which you can add to your watchlist. Then you can check on how those are going and offer suggestions. If after awhile you get the impression that I don't further mentoring in that area, you can let me know and I'll quit posting the deletion debates to that page.

It may be that I've changed enough that I won't need a whole lot of suggestions, although obviously in the last AfD some people didn't think my style was ideal. I think what happens is that sometimes young people will be very idealistic and want to cause a lot of change. Then what is euphemistically called "patience" and dysphemistically called "despair" sets in. One realizes that raging against the system won't help, but there some productive tasks that can be accomplished within the system. And sometimes creative avenues can be found for figuring out solutions that everyone is okay with. That's pretty much at the point I'm at now &mdash; working on some innovations and meanwhile contributing within the system we have now, while trying not to cause too much trouble, even though I disagree with a lot of people. Sometimes I rile people up more than I anticipated, although I admit to having done it purposefully in the past.

One of my concerns is that if I am allowed to edit again, it will very easy for me to get kicked off again if, say, someone reports me to WP:ANI for something they perceive as a bad edit. A lot of times, people don't scrutinize the facts very carefully in those forums, and people can get blocked based on mistaken facts or mistaken interpretations of the facts. This is especially true if, as in my case, the accused has a history of getting blocked. The risk is also elevated by the fact that I edit articles on some controversial subjects about which a lot of editors may have agendas. Sometimes people will try to get rid of an inconvenient editor by saying "Look, he's agenda-pushing" or "He's being disruptive" or "He's being uncivil." I'm not saying every such allegation is unfounded, and indeed there have been times I was blatantly guilty, although I'm going to try not to be in the future. But there are also times when allegations are untrue or exaggerated, and people get blocked without good reason.

If you are my mentor, perhaps if I'm being unfairly accused, you can help by pointing out the facts as you know them from your involvement with me and your familiarity with my editing patterns. And maybe you can suggest to me more effective ways of communicating and editing that are less likely to get on people's nerves and arouse objections. Despite my having a lot of experience on Wikipedia, there is always more to learn about editing better, applying policy better and working better with other editors. My goal is to succeed as a Wikipedian by making the best contribution I can to the project.

Actually, 99% of what I do on Wikipedia, no one seems to take issue with. That could be because I'm doing all right, or because not much attention is paid. In any case, you are free to withdraw from the mentorship relationship at any time if you feel it's not working, but I hope it will. All right, we'll talk later. Leucosticte (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've created a page at User:BDD/Mentorship/Leucosticte dedicated to this mentorship. I've got a couple of broad questions for you to answer there. Full --~ signatures shouldn't be necessary there, but you'll see I'm using a simple signature just to make the conversations more readable. We'll keep our user talk pages clear and use that page for all matters regarding the mentorship—except for "field work," of course. And the talk page will be for general discussion related to the mentorship. Sound good? I'll address some of your points over there. I'm looking forward to this. --BDD (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your willingness to mentor Leucosticte, and the efforts you have put in so far. The Arbitration Committee, however, have become aware that Leucosticte is a returned banned user, and he has been blocked. Any appeals against this block must be made by Leucosticte directly to the Committee by email.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Userfication of AFD articles
Hi. I answered your question at WT:Userfication. I hope my tone isn't too curt – I wanted to cover everything for future readers. I saw that you've been working on the WP:WikiProject Merge backlog. Your edit summaries and Copieds look good. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

your IP Law Leaders feedback
Thank you very much for your comment regarding "keep" or "delete" in reference to IP Law Leaders. Your explanation was very clear and understandable. Warmest Regards, Chtousi (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)chtousi

List of Tea Party politicians
Hi! Kudos for your effort in cleaning up the List of Tea Party politicians. That's quite an undertaking. In the AFD, you noted that you also cleaned up the reference formatting. Might I suggest a different citation style for ease of future editting? The current style which is the one I would also normally choose places the full citation in-line with the content. When used with tables which have a bit of awkward syntax, it makes finding and editting rows difficult because of the large amount of citation text with "|" all over the place. Perhaps using the Harvard citation templates might reduce the in-line clutter by moving the full citation into an entry in the references section. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Gold   Standard  19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

!!
1) Thanks for supporting the Lamia move. I'm glad people are finally seeing reason. But of course you supported the move; it's clear you're a fine, upstanding gentleman, because...

2) W&M! Woo, tribe pride!

96.231.223.206 (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Daly (soccer coach)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RT (TV network)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RT (TV network). 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi politics
--Soman (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to serve in the Israeli military
Youre rigt, I put something on the talk page instead.Lihaas (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Aerospace1
Hi, BDD. Good to meet you! In all my years on Wikipedia I never saw someone create an account for the first time and move directly to the move request area and stay there only. No one even knows that such thing as move requests exist when they first appear on Wikipedia. And when you check Aerospace1's log history you can clearly see that something is very wrong. Thanks for the tip. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem like sockpuppet behavior, but I don't see a pattern or any evidence of disruption so far. It's not an everyday occurrence, but I've seen similar new accounts, though they usually stalk AfD more often than RM. spa will help closing admins give appropriate weight to the votes (close to 0), but at this point, the user is mostly harmless. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

re:citation style
Sorry about this. On Chinese wikipedia this template is for articles that have an inappropriate citation style; I thought that it's the same here on enwiki. I've changed it to Cleanup-link rot.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RM
Hey, nice to see someone else put in a RM ;). At some future point, if you have time, I'd like to see Talk:Stephane Huet x5 be reopened. But up to you, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm surprised that move failed just a few months ago. Consensus has definitely changed since then. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Well it was 8 to 5, but yes I suppose the WP:tennisnames RfC consensus didn't carry to the RM corner. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frasier Crane
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frasier Crane. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Rapping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab (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) 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubb Rubb 2nd nomination
Hello BDD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubb Rubb 2nd nomination, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The page is five years old, and deletion might break links from outside Wikipedia. Consider sending this to WP:RFD if you still think it should be deleted.''' Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Montréal Québec Temple
You do realize that your vote is based on a series of faulty other-stuff-exists arguments, right? Just because the Salt Lake Temple is notable doesn't make the Montreal Temple notable; just because the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is notable doesn't make the Montreal Temple notable. You have to consider the articles on their individual merits. And in this case, those three temples, and a number of other temples which have already been merged or will be AfDed in the future, are unsourced and fail the BEFORE test p  b  p  04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In essence, what your saying is some made-up-no-consensus-for-it-ever idea that all LDS temples are notable trumps GNG. That is why I am so upset at your argument, because that's completely ridiculous.  Notability is determined by sources.  These articles are unsourced, failed the BEFORE test, and neither you nor Oakshade have found any sources  p  b  p  23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you think policies like inherent notability get applied to subjects? Do you think it applies to high schools because they all have oodles of sources, so obviously ever high school meets GNG? That's at least as silly as my argument. It's about deletion outcomes. If enough people agree with me (probably over multiple nominations), we'll call it inherent notability. If they don't, I'll just look like a fool. You don't have to agree with me, but if you don't, I'd humbly suggest ignoring me is the best course of action. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups
Did my removal of the clause about Internet groups clear up the opening sentence enough? I wasn't sure if i followed all the items you had listed. Insomesia (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. Were we (or are we) excluding groups "that appear to exist only on the Internet," or is the SPLC doing that? --BDD (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that was about and it seems unlikely to survive a lot of clarification. As for the SPLC hate is hate, and most groups have an online presence. I recall a big trend being that groups could export music, videos and propaganda directly to the homes of recruits and not have to even organize a rally. This can all be done without national borders so even municipalities that outlaw certain expressions might not have the reach to stop online expressions of hate. The clause raised more questions than it clarified as far as I can tell. Insomesia (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a clearer article without it. As long as none of us are making arbitrary judgments about which SPLC-designated groups should be included or not, the underlying issue is fine. --BDD (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

IIO
This user continuously shops his grievances against me to various admins and in various forums. Judging from his many kilobytes of output, it is a project that he devotes hours to every day. The complaints are mostly about page moves that I made last year. The only reason he knows about these moves is because he researches my edit history obsessively. This has been going on for almost two months now. Kauffner (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it just the Vietnamese foods or does it go broader? I suppose it's difficult for a third party to notice these things. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been actively editing Vietnam-related articles for several years. IIO's original grievance against me related to Eastern European diacritics. He developed an interest in Vietnam toward the end of June, apparently as a way of getting back at me for not "recognizing" Eastern Europeans. This RfC gives you an idea of his tactics, and how his digs through my edit history to create trouble me. He is trying to move all the Vietnam-related titles to Vietnamese-language spellings, not just food. The complaints against me have already been dealt with at ANI. But IIO continues to shop them around, and even found an admin willing to block me at one point. Kauffner (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, evidently Kauffner saw your Admin suggestion 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) at 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC). The above is par for the course, in that there doesn't seem to a single sentence in the above that is wikt:honest. Do I really need to run through them: ...Anyway, we'll see. Filelakeshoe has now unearthed a new series of problematic moves related to railway stations, but IP activity is only on 1 which wasn't moved. Last it was left that Cuchullain says some Arbcom action will be needed. The question is what. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I had given Kauffner a barnstar not so many months ago - I think we can safely say he won't be getting any more barnstars.
 * 2) I hadn't noticed Kauffner being a major idiot on Eastern European names - he supported the TENNISNAMES thing, but only as a cheerleader, no worse than 2 or 3 others, he didn't do any G6, undiscussed moves or initiate silly RMs.
 * 3) Kauffner has created 3 articles to WP:VN it is true wheras I had also only created 4 at the beginning of this year. I have not been in Vietnam for nearly 20 years so apart from a few CDs on the shelves it is ancient history for me.
 * 4) I did not comment on Karl B 21 July 2012 (UTC) taking Kauffner to ANI above.
 * 5) Karl B's ANI post was (luckily for Kauffner) closed 2 days before 23 July discovering the extent of the IP/deletions/G6 activity in Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive
 * 6) Also I didn't "get an admin to block him" - the admin did that when Kauffner failing to realise it was an admin speaking to him gave his standard snarky reply and deleted the admin's comments from his Talk page.


 * Hi BDD,
 * Assuming your view of me hasn't U-turned after seeing the Sockpuppet investigation, Kauffner's comment about East European names reminds me of some French names:


 * Stephane Huet → Stéphane Huet
 * Stephane Sansoni → Stéphane Sansoni
 * Stephane Grenier ‎ → Stéphane Grenier
 * Frederic Fontang ‎ → Frédéric Fontang
 * Frederic Vitoux (tennis) → Frédéric Vitoux (tennis)
 * These came early in the response to WP:TENNISNAMES and despite a majority support were deferred by a request for an RfC by Mike Cline, which duly took place though only 20 of 100 who had spoken on RMs in 30 days previous showed up, ...which I can understand, since RfCs are unpleasant places. All other RMs simply passed with strong majority support. I don't think it's appropriate for me to be the one to resubmit, but someone should. per WP:BLP if nothing else In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's also


 * Daniel-Alejandro Lopez → Daniel Alejandro López (no hyphen, accent)
 * Which just got missed.
 * Up to you of course. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Afro-textured hair
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Afro-textured hair. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lilith Sternin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lilith Sternin. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment about me
"[George Ho] is nothing if not a productive, positive editor." (Quoted from Talk:Lilith Sternin) Can you elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm? When I run into you, usually on RMs, I often agree with your perspectives and proposals. On that page, I just wanted to echo some other editors' statements to clarify that while I don't agree with what you want to do on that article, I'm not suggesting bad faith or intending any aspersions against your general judgment. I thought it was straightforward enough, no sarcasm or anything. --BDD (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Major Indoor Soccer League
What exactly constitutes a fully professional league remains of a point of contention. I've always taken it to mean a league in which all players are payed a living wage. Some exceptions are generally permissible, usually youngsters at the very beginning of their careers and reservists who are only nominally part of a club's first team squad. My main concern with sources like this one that only describe a league only as professional is that it is not uncommon for league's with some degree of professionalism to be referred to as such, while not being fully pro. For example, I've seen numerous sources describing the Lithuanian A Lyga as professional, yet the source for its entry at WP:FPL (now a dead link unfortunately) quotes one of the club's managers talking about how a number of his players were part-timers with day jobs, and describing his club as not professional. Basically what it boils down to is that the source is not sufficiently precise for my liking. I hope this helps. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Public Advocate of the United States
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Public Advocate of the United States. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Triple Gold Club
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Triple Gold Club. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lower Assam
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lower Assam. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin review
I have completed a brief admin review, as you requested. It can be found at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/BDD. I generally full protect these, so if there are any questions, just use my regular talk page. The RfA/RfB box has a lot of useful links that show many metrics, and is also worth glancing at, as this is the same template that will be used at an RfA. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DRC
Hey - would you mind reopening the Democratic Republic of the Congo move request? I was edit-conflicted from adding my support !vote as you closed it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

✅ Certainly. I reserve the right to close again in a few days if consensus remains clear, and a proper admin may still find there's consensus as is. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of boycotts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mediate (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) 10:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Mentorship
Hi, I'd love to have you as my mentor. Any advise that you have to help me improve my copywriting skills would be really appreciated. So how exactly does this mentorship work?

Carlang (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to mentor you. The Guild's program is pretty informal, and you'll be the first person I've mentored in it. I think it would be useful to have a discussion area in my userspace so we don't have to worry about going back and forth between our talk pages or monopolizing one of them. I'll see you over at User:BDD/Mentorship/Carlang! --BDD (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland on the move
With the help of your vote, I am finally RMing Ireland over at WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, again
For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi people. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you declared it "not moved"?
Maybe take a second look with your eyes open, and notice how it's all Serb-nationalist (according to their own user pages) editors using 100% invalid (plain wrong/false) "arguments", or not elaborating at all, while accusing others of POV. --Niemti (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was thinking NACs couldn't be "no consensus," which is not the case. But I'm still inclined to say I made the right call. I see five in opposition versus two in support. I think it's best to ignore POV bickering, though I don't think it's fair to discount the opinions of those editors. Finally, I'm certainly not going to consider the personal views of editors, assuming good faith and keeping in mind that editors who don't express their views may have biases just as strong. Should I assume from your section heading that you would prefer the request was ruled "no consensus"? --BDD (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the word "invalid"? These were entirely FALSE arguments, or no arguments at all, by people having these templates in the style of "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo" placed by themselves for some reason into their own user spaces, and then still daring to accuse others of "nationalism" and "POV"? (While I'm not just not from Balkans, I don't even edit anything else Serbia/Kosovo/Albania related.) So INVALID (just plain wrong, like falsely claiming it's nothing Albania related so it can stay as "in Kosovo", just read them, and my comments) opinions should be completely disregarded. --Niemti (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your position that editors with stated positions on an issue, such as Kosovar independence, should not be able to comment on related discussions? Which arguments in particular did you believe should be judged invalid? And again, what do you think is the appropriate outcome? Should it be ruled as no consensus? Moved? Relisted? Left open? --BDD (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They should be able, if they only stated something that was not false, and thus invalid, or just gave no arguments at all even when asked to elaborate (btw, these included sleeper accounts, that just "mysteriously" woke up after several years of inactivity). And so after rejecting these invalid opinions, you can read the valuable part, especially how Labattblueboy had somehow to be pointed out how his idea of "The term alleged is not found in a single article title listed" is completely incorrect, and then came with "Kosovo organ trafficking", which would be acceptable only if it either relates to Medicus clinic affair (Kosovo organ trafficking allegations) with the "Albania yellow house" allegations split (maybe as Albania organ harvesting allegations), or just becomes Albania and Kosovo organ trafficking allegations, which is best reflecting reality and NPOV too (also according to several "article titles listed", as pointed by me right there and all bolded out, which is even strange that I had to do it). --Niemti (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to split the article, in that case. In my experiencing, splitting and merging are lower-profile alternatives to RMs, which often attract contentious discussion. If you can show, by citation of reliable sources that one or both of the incidents may not have happened, a term like "alleged" could be appropriate in a title. Of course, those articles could be subject to RMs themselves, but consensus building is the foundation of Wikipedia; sometimes things won't go your way. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe, after a split: Medicus clinic case might be about Medicus, with Kosovo and Albania organ harvesting ring allegations about the "yellow house" thing. And hey I bolded out these articles (all used in the article), and I told you already about my bolding out too. --Niemti (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Alternatively, attach a few citations to the term "allegedly" in the lede. The article as is seems to be more about organ theft (or trafficking) than allegations. If most reliable sources treat the matter as only a series of allegations, you may be able to edit the article to a point where the proposed title will be a better fit. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's all about allegations, in the famous affair. There's not even a single corpse, not a single named witness, not a single indicted person, nothing at all but allegations (not even any "allegedly", just "allegations", or "claims" - including in the ref articles where they were falsely claiming it's not in the very titles, and yet it was in the very titles - READ the discussion, you'll see how I had to bold it out for some strange reason because someone said it's not there). On the other hand, Medicus affair is basically unrelated, and nobody has been convicted as of now. --Niemti (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono song)
Ahh, thank you for informing me. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Classification article renames
Can these articles be moved back to their original names? Some of the names include Paralympic for sports not currently governed the Paralympics or competed at the Paralympics. There is inconsistent usage of disabled versus disability. (The correct usage is disability, not disabled.) No rename discussion took place for these articles.--LauraHale (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't move them back, as I'm not an administrator. The discussions had been open for over a month, so the lack of participation was taken as support, albeit weak support. A multiple page move will probably be the best way of renaming the articles you'd like to move. Given the circumstances, I doubt anyone would really consider it canvassing if you want to notify some relevant WikiProjects to participate in the discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)