User talk:BDD/Archive 20

re: White-man
Good evening, BDD. I think there is some confusion over the closure for the redirect White-man. Someone added that link to the nomination for "white-guy" despite there being a separate discussion specific to "white-man". See Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_30. I haven't figured out the timing but while the consensus for "white-guy" was clearly to delete, the consensus on the "white-man" discussion is pretty unambiguously to keep. At least, that's how it looks to me. (Disclaimer: I have expressed an opinion in the "white-man" discussion so my opinion is not completely disinterested.)  I'd appreciate if you'd look into it. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, Rossami beat me to it. I also expressed no opinion at that RfD, but I've closed it as delete (since it's just a matter of fact that it has been deleted). Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rossami, you're absolutely right. It looks like there were some irregularities in how that was tagged, but I apologize for not noticing this. Indeed there's consensus to keep at "White-man"'s own discussion, and I'll re-close it as such, but with no prejudice against speedy renomination, given the opinions at the "White-guy" discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Montgomery Meigs
The revised hatnote on Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1919–1944) and Montgomery C. Meigs points to the deleted Montgomery Meigs page. Suggestion? NotaBene 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it. I've almost updated all the links to that title, some of which were actually not for the contemporary figure. I'll be moving the disambiguation page there in a few minutes... --BDD (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Thanks for this close. Can you also axe the 12 variations included by reference. (link there) Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Sounds Like Teen Spirit, "Loser like Me", &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   11:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization
Hi BDD! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect that might interest you. Good faith!  Paine  21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested Move - Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
Please see the talk page for McComish v. Bennett, and please consider making the needed move to conform Wikipedia to standard acceptance of the case name.

Phpope (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accuracy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accuracy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Political spouses
BDD, I thought that you might have some thoughts about the notability of spouses of well-known politicians who have done nothing notable except to marry a well-known politician, And yet may be covered in depth in major media as "spouse of." We have a surprising number of articles that fit this description. If the question interests you at all, I have started a thread on the talk page of WP:INHERIT, (prompted by an active AFD on Michael Haley (South Carolina)).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Gyunyu

 * 

Japanese. But actually sometimes Japanese uses miruku, which is loan of the English word "milk". Deryck C. 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump University
Hi BDD. Are you willing to do an early close of the move request of Trump Entrepreneur Initiative to Trump University? This shaping up to be a WP:SNOW discussion and the subject is incredibly hot at the moment, with 99.9% of our traffic coming from our Trump University redirect (compare these). We are in the thick of the Republican primary election season and I'd think we want to confuse as few voters as possible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Doc. Didn't see that there was an active RM; WP:THE seemed like a no-brainer, but I wouldn't've even done that if I had been aware. I'd prefer to leave the decision to close early to someone else, though. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I made a request at WP:AN/RFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stereotypes of White Europeans RfD

 * 

This entry still has no interest. I'm guessing your default recommendation is deletion (but I'm not 100% sure from your nomination comment)? I'm happy to enact whatever your suggestion is, per "no quorum" rule. Deryck C. 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for inquiring. I have doubts about the feasibility of a broad "Stereotypes of White Europeans" article, but I'm not necessarily against the idea. In absence of one, I think that should be red. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (By the way, it looks like you forgot a closing statement at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 4. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks. I don't know what's gone wrong. It seems that twice over the last 24 years rfd top has left out my closing statement. Maybe I typed an extra pipe. Deryck C. 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what I've done wrong. It's syntactically forbidden to put a string with an equal sign inside a template argument. I could've done (something with = in it), but in that case I may as well do (somethign with = in it) . Deryck C. 16:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Roger Delacroix/sandbox
Hi BDD. Thanks for helping to cleanup User talk:Roger Delacroix. Does anything need to be done about User:Roger Delacroix/sandbox as well? It was created by the same editor after his attempt to change his user name, but there still seems to be a possibility for conflict since there is no User:Roger Delacroix.

Also, it looks like the same editor may be using an IP to edit based upon some edits made to the aforementioned sandbox. The edits are a bit unusual for an editor to make to another's userspace since they just keep adding and removing the same non-free file. So, it could be he just forgot his password. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, thank you. I've moved that too. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Miss World 2017
You deleted this article per an RFD. Could you please SALT it for a year also? It will soon be recreated otherwise as seen with Miss World 2016 and that article is salted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

WikipÆdia redirect deletion
I have a question. How come WikipÆdia has been removed? When one does a Google search of "Wikipædia", the first enwp.org result is the deleted redirect. Thanks. Uamaol (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was an XfD. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8 for the discussion. I suppose the idea that someone would capitalize the "Æ" in the middle of the word was deemed unlikely. --BDD (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions. Since you have had some involvement with the Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions redirects (i.e. Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 5), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-requested block
Could you block me. This is a static IP and I'm trying to quit Wikipedia but they keep pyulling me back in. Thanks. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not willing to do this. The template on your talk page says it's a shared IP. That may be wrong, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to want to contradict it. Another admin may be able to help you. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm supporting you new redirects for disscusion
See: Johan Cruyff, Cruijff Turn... I hope that you include it for disscussion. I thanx and hope that you will do it. I'm sorry but I don't have any time for technical support for these pages. Greetings. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Dawid2009, but I don't understand your request. Neither of those pages are redirects. I'd like to try to help if I can. --BDD (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see there difference in surname of this footballer. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, I think the title for the "turn" article should match that of Cruyff's biography. I'll go ahead and move it, but if I'm reverted, I recommend you start an WP:RM. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, thanx for information. I have got also one question to you... Mybe you don't know rules of polishWiki as ENwiki, but in PLwiki is case where... From article pl:Johan Cruijff rusults that Cruijff is surname, but from bibliography from pl:Cruyff Turn (Tomorrow I have done redirect yesterday) Cruyff is Johan's surname. What in this situation do? Standarisation based on biography article, or sources in article of Cruyff Turn are relevant for this article's name? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the Polish Wikipedia's standards, though I assume they'd want a consistent spelling also. You might want to contact admins there—as you may know, admin privileges do not transfer across Wikipedias, so I couldn't do any more there than you could. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Time is Not Yet Ripe
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lyin' Ted listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lyin&. Since you had some involvement with the Lyin' Ted redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Politrukki (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RMnac
Template:RMnac has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Northern Chinese
I haven't looked throught this fully yet but you closed the RfD discussion on this as retargeting to North China (disambiguation) on my say-so (as far as I see). But that is currently also standing with an RfD tag (my doing, and xrefed the two together); it would be a redirect were it not for the RfD tag to North China. I think perhaps you closed interuntwindedly? Surely you would not have closed it with the intention of retargeting a redirect to a redirect, which it would be were it not for the tags; but as it stands if the target goes "keep" then you've made a double redirect and we're back where we started. Did you intend to retarget it to the target of the redirect, North China? I am not sure we have consensus for that although I would support it.

Without a hint of sycophancy (and considering I just shouted "foul"! I doubt you would take it as such) I would like to thank you sincerely for all the hard work you put in to make WP better. I certainly notice, but rarely get a chance to say so. That sentiment still stands when I disagree with you. Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am wrong it ain't. I am still getting ec's here at your talk page so not sure what you said a few mins ago. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Si. Thanks for the kind words, and I wasn't around when you wrote this—maybe the edit conflict was from double-clicking Save page? I know that's happened to me. You're correct about my closure, but it's Northern China (disambiguation), not North China (disambiguation), that's also at RfD. Maybe the situation will get resolved further there. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
 * Legacypac, you know better. A similar term is being discussed at RfD, and they're both navigational aids, not attacks. You can discuss it there if you'd like. Don't leave me a vague template and make me have to check your contributions to even know what you're talking about. Speaking of talking, try doing that before jumping to these sorts of conclusions. It's become something of a cliché that you can't tell someone to AGF without it sounding like an attack, but I'm going to do it anyway. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Was not meaning to templete you, just used Twinkle. Sorry about that. I'm voting against all political insults as redirects. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, tread carefully. G10 candidates are supposed to be attack pages "serve no other purpose". I hope I've never given you or any other editor cause to believe that I would just sit here and attack people via redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 (2)


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You know better than to delete a speedy tag from an article that you have created. Use of this term as a redirect is an unambiguous attack on the subject.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, ScrapIronIV, I didn't, for which I must apologize. I'm not used to seeing my creations tagged for speedy deletion, and was obviously thinking of PRODs, which creators can remove. Still, I think this is better discussed at RfD, like Lyin' Ted. It is absolutely untrue that this is an attack page with no other purpose. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please forgive the template, as Twinkle adds it on its own when tagging CSD. I would have CSD'd Lyin' Ted, or any other pejorative nickname for any BLP of any political affiliation.  I am shocked that it even needs to be discussed.  Associating an insult with a BLP should be a no-brainer.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but as can be seen at that discussion, other editors disagree in good faith. I will, of course, accept consensus if the decision is to delete it, and would rather see Little Marco go through the same process, rather than just being judged by the first admin who decides to do something. No doubt you'll take it to RfD if the CSD is declined, right? --BDD (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have commented there, and hopefully we will end up agreeing that what is good for one should be good enough for the other.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to RfD it already but Twinkle sees too much text to accept it as a redirect. So someone (maybe me) will have to do it manually, because it is too hard on my phone. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone besides me would have to contest the CSD. If you do, I'll go ahead and nominate it myself (with a keep vote, of course). --BDD (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps add Rubiobot to your RFD nomination? I don't know if it is permitted to edit another person's RFD entry. Or if it would be wise when people have already commented. Politrukki (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, in general, pages with different creators can be bundled, but as both the creator and nominator in this case, I don't want to add that one to "Little Marco". I probably would not have made "Rubiobot" myself and think they're different cases. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussants needed at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4
Since you have made several edits to "Talk:Blurred Lines", I was hoping you might take the time to contribute to the discussion at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Quietscheenchen
User:Drmies has asked for a deletion review of Quietscheenchen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's Quietscheentchen, haha. Tough word, I know, but thanks for the note here; I thought I had pinged BDD. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (I had been, but thanks. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

re: "...Re"
Good morning, BDD. I've read the discussions yet again and I just can't see a clear consensus. At least, not for anything except the obvious "don't delete it". That said, I also still think that the minimal consensus of "not delete" was sufficient to close the RfD thread. Normal editing, including sometimes contentious debates, happens all the time on pages all over Wikipedia. XfD discussions are different only because they put the pagehistory at risk and can end in actions which require special admin powers to undo. A non-delete decision means that regular editing, including bold rewrites of the entire page, can resume. If you think the consensus supports a retargetting, I think you can just do it. No permission needed from me or anyone else.

By the way, I found and fixed the mistake that was hiding my links to the prior discussions on the Talk page. Hopefully, it's easier to find now. Apologies in advance if that contributed to the confusion. Rossami (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'll be bold. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

William Keith Kellogg (over at RfD)
by the way this was the first biography my wife translated from EN:WP to HU:WP at hu:William Keith Kellogg. She knew a lot about the chap so I did the gnomework with the templates and stuff. But after doing the second or third revision, and being rather told off because she didn't know enough about it (she was translating she didn't have to know anything about it but do a faithful translation, even though she knew a lot about it), she gave up translating from EN:WP to HU:WP. One of the tudors (translating into HU:WP) really made her cry when she was told she didn't know enough, it is her favourite subject, she knows damn well more about the Tudors than I do, but in English and Hungarian we had stacks of references and you can imagine they were about half and half, and was essentially told off by a Hungarian doctor who WP:OWNs the Tudor articles in Hungarian WP. She never edited again, and I have never seen her cry before or since (she is not one for crying my missus but she had spent days doing I think Mary I Tudor on HU:WP to have some mad professor tell her it was worthless). It is not quite the free-for-all at HU:WP as it is at EN:WP, and she was so upset by the experience she never edited again.n My missus is User:Monkap if you want to look up her contributions; her very first contribution was to try to make the encylopaiedia better in 2009 by adding and translating John Harvey Kellogg to the Hungarian WP (I know that is not William Keith K. but baby steps). Si Trew (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it shows the disregard of translation here at Wikipedia. When I translate a French article and do all the tie-up, like I did at Mariniere for example, allyou get is it being removed from WP:PNT as done. You don't get a thank you for doing it, it is just removed, you don't get a tick mark or anything. Yet translation is very difficult. It is not just pushing it through Google Translate. It is a highly skilled thing and I would not dare to translate from English to French but can do it passably the other way around. I struggle with the idioms sometimes and I tend to do all the linkup first take out the verbosity and then leave it as an article or a stub for others to improve. But you get no thanks for doing translation on Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your wife's experiences. I wish I could say that wouldn't happen here, but... --BDD (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Question
I'm not as familiar with wikipedia policy as you are. How do I resolve the article title issue surrounding the Civil Rights Movement? The term is being used as a descriptive term. Reliable sources do not treat it as a descriptive term. What can I do? Mitchumch (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mitchumch. For now, I think we just have to let the discussion play out, hopefully with new voices. I'm biased, of course, but it might be helpful to change your "oppose" to something like "Support Civil Rights Movement" or "Support, but prefer Civil Rights Movement", as appropriate. With so much discussion, you can bet the closer won't be reading every word, so those bolded votes will be an important factor. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I will do.


 * I actually need help with disentangling the definition of the term. When there is a discussion surrounding the term, the meaning is only as a descriptive term.  There does not seem to be the idea the term designates an event.  How do I disentangle these two meanings while providing article space for both?  This is at the core of virtually all discussions I've encountered with this term.  Mitchumch (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, what's why capitalization makes sense here, even if it's not something you'd see in other sources. There are many civil rights movements, any of which could be called a "civil rights movement". But that phrase alone strongly connotes the specific movement we're discussing, and currently is a primary topic here on Wikipedia. Your average newspaper article could talk about "the civil rights movement", and that's fine, because "the" makes it clear we're talking about a specific event. And unless context has established otherwise, it can be assumed to be the African-American one. But since we generally avoid definite articles in titles, "Civil Rights Movement" is the best way to set this one off. As a proper noun, it means something different than a generic "civil rights movement". --BDD (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for a group of dispassionate editors I can talk to about this article title and related issues. There are several interrelated issues surrounding this article that are missed if you don't dig into the scholarship.  How would you approach this?  Mitchumch (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dispassionate? I'm afraid that might be tough with the RM ongoing. I'd suggest just trying to start a talk page discussion about it afterwards. You never know, the current discussion may resolve to your liking. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=720873715 your edit] to Tim Buckley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * *Tim Buckley/Goodbye and Hello (2001) Compilation of first two albums

You've got mail
-- Tavix ( talk ) 21:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Multi-sport event
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Multi-sport event. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey
If you by chance see discussions disappear on WP:RFD, could you please get my attention ASAP (maybe via email since I'm checking it these days?) The most recent day is having a few unexpected bugs, and I don't know why. I may have to completely undo the collapse option if it keeps happening. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs. Since you had some involvement with the StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

re closure of Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 25
I'm not seeing how this comes to "no consensus". One keep, one delete, two redirects, and me amenable to either of the last two seems to add up to "redirect". Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's so straightforward. "Whitewashes" can be a verb; it can also be a plural noun. The top image at Whitewash, for example, shows multiple whitewashes. IMO arguments about the different meanings of the word better support moving Whitewash (disambiguation) to the base title, rather than making simple variants of the title point elsewhere (cf. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --BDD (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Pratfall

 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24

I've read the discussion several times and am having a hard time seeing a delete result. That aside, I don't think pratfalling would be much of a likely search term. So would you mind if we merely restored Pratfall, since that clearly refers to a section in Physical comedy? - jc37 09:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging nom Oiyarbepsy. I was assuming the nomination was for deletion, but maybe that wasn't the case. Restoring doesn't seem like a great idea unless Physical comedy is expanded to have more than a dictionary definition of the word. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good example of WP:SOFTDELETE. That said, I don't think physical comedy is a very good target, slapstick might be better, but still not great. I was hoping that maybe somewhere we had an article that actually specifically addresses pratfalls in some way, but it appears we don't, so I personally would go towards delete. I wouldn't be opposed to recreating it to a different target if you have a good one in mind. (And, no, User:Jc37, the physical comedy article doesn't have a "section" on pratfalls, it has half a sentence). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

82.112.144.10
Revoke user:82.112.144.10's talk page access. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Sullivans
Following on from Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator), I come bearing bad news on the Dan Sullivan front. Apparently the mayor is now running for the U.S. Senate! What a disaster for our neat disambiguation solution that will be if he wins. I think I'm now more interested in the Alaskan primary than Trump v Clinton. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, I saw that too. I think our only recourse at that point would be along the lines of Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator, born 1951) and Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator, born 1964). Geez. Can the WMF donate to Lisa Murkowski, just in the interests of keeping things simple? --BDD (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Slave owners in the United States Category
Thank you for your question regarding Category:Slave owners in the United States. Shortly after creating that category, it occurred to me that Category:American slave owners might be a better category name, but I wanted to see if I got a second opinion on it, and for that reason, I would have no objection whatsoever to a category renaming.--TommyBoy (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have nominated the category for speedy renaming.--TommyBoy (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

To appeal the result
Hi! I'm not very active here, but I want to appeal this result, made by you → Talk:Donbass. Can I do that on the same page or there is some special page? Thank you--TnoXX (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TnoXX, I think you're talking about my move review of that request, at Move review/Log/2015 March, yes? There isn't a formal way to appeal move reviews—they are the appeal. I suppose you would take them to Arbcom, though that's clearly not appropriate here. Still, if you're hoping to move the page back to Donets Basin, it's been over a year. You can just start a new WP:RM at Talk:Donbass. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I used wrong term. I'll start a new discussion on a Talk Page.--TnoXX (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. You were asking for an appeal, though the amount of time has passed means it's more a matter for a new discussion anyway, even if it hadn't gone to MRV. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
–  Steel1943  (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Dispute
Hi,

I've been trying to fix the grammar of some articles. However I've encountered a rather a strong and firm resistance in the form of User:4TheWynne. I looked at the guidelines and it says the revert tool is for vandalism not for good faith edits or edits someone simply dislikes. Please understand that I mean to make good edits on this wiki and not to be a troll or bully. If I make a mistake, I would appreciate it would be fixed and told why it is a mistake instead of simply reverting.

Anyway, what I'm asking is the articles to be reviewed, a consensus to be held instead of simply reverting edits, and the user above to be told of what revert tool is not to be used for.

Please and Thank youDarksheets52 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Hey there – allow me to try and explain my actions. I first warned the user and explained my reasons for reverting in the warnings that I gave. I deemed these grammar changes (in the context of the articles that they were being placed in, namely Characters of Warcraft and Arthas Menethil) to be unnecessary, and I tried to explain this. When the user reverted back, asking me to discuss on the article's talk page rather than give a reason for their edits in his/her edit summaries or the user's own talk page where I had tried to reason with the user, I did so (after perhaps one revert too many, and for that, I apologise). However, it has now been two hours since I opened up a discussion on Talk:Arthas Menethil and the user didn't respond until after he/she had reported me to other editors. Again, I apologise if my actions were too harsh – I was only trying to protect the pages that were being affected by these changes, particularly as the user wasn't listening to me initially and was instead removing my warnings from his/her talk page without explaining their edits. Again, sorry about all of this. Thanks – regards,  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  10:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is settled now, if the question is whether Frostmourne needs a definite article. In the future, just remember WP:BRD is the way it's supposed to go. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Do comments have a purpose?
I don't understand how a discussion with only 2 posts -- neither of which recommends deletion -- can be interpreted to result in deletion. I don't much care whether the the redirect is deleted or not, but you must understand that as an ordinary Wikipedian what I learn from this is that commenting on topics like this is purposeless. There was an RfD put out for this, and if the conclusion was foregone, it should have been taken without fooling the community into thinking it had input. Phil wink (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Phil, first piece of advice, assume good faith. When I take issue with something someone has done, I try to always acknowledge the possibility that I've just overlooked something. Starting with a question like "Do comments have a purpose?" seems much more likely to defensiveness than lead to constructive dialogue. I understand the project can be frustrating at times.
 * As I'm sure you know, XfDs are closed based on the whole of the discussion, not just by counting votes. The nomination focused on the fact that "Augustan couplet" was not mentioned at the Closed couplet. At RfD, that typically means the redirect is deleted, since such cases can confuse and mislead readers into suggesting we have content that we don't. You made a thoughtful, well-informed argument for retargeting the phrase to Heroic couplet instead, but this would suffer from the same problem mentioned in the nomination—i.e., it's not mentioned in that article either. Since the listing period for the discussion had ended, and since the delete-worthy concerns had not been addressed, I closed the discussion as delete.
 * If you care to add content about Augustan couplets, preferably with sourcing, at Heroic couplet or elsewhere, please feel free to recreate the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on your assumption about my assumption.
 * As for the frustration, I interpreted the note about lack of reference to "Augustan couplet" in the main article(s) not as a default cause for deletion, but simply as a lack of information on which way the redirect should point. I think most nonspecialists would read the actual text of the RfD this way. None of the criteria at WP:R or WP:R are based on whether the redirect is explicitly referenced in the main article; indeed some suggest it would not be. And my very limited experience with Redirects for discussion suggests a totally different perspective on what should be deleted than you've explained. From this foundation, you can see how the "result" of the discussion can appear (rightly or wrongly) to be not even a little bit connected to the discussion. Hence my gobsmackedness.
 * At this point, I'm not interested in sorting out who's right and who's wrong, because I assure you I will not be darkening the door of Redirects for discussion again. I am only responding because I hope that you or some other editor of good faith will appreciate the optics problem this involves and possibly find some ways to ameliorate it in the future. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that someone who isn't a "regular" at RfD might not understand the significance of the "not mentioned at target article" argument. I'm afraid that, like Wikipedia as a whole, RfD has grown in some ways that make it impenetrable to outsiders. The nominator is an administrator and a common RfD participant, so I don't think I misinterpreted his comment, though it's certainly possible.
 * The underlying principle here I'll strongly defend: a redirect means a search term is going to show up in the box, clearly suggesting to a reader that we cover the concept in some form. If they're taken to a page where that concept isn't mentioned, though—in all but the most clear cases—not only are we misleading and failing to serve that reader, but what sort of takeaway is the reader going to have? What does it say about the trustworthiness and usefulness of the encyclopedia to him or her? In my opinion, such considerations must be foremost in our minds as we go about our work. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that you'd understand 's import better than I (hi, I don't expect a response; just didn't want to talk behind your back), and your "not mentioned in target article" argument is reasonable (though not by my lights obviously more persuasive than other contrary principles). And I appreciate that sometimes Administrators need to get stuff done. But if this is really the case here, then (Thryduulf) don't ask just do. You're asking Wikipedians to contribute to a discussion that they cannot possibly comprehend because the determinitive rule is not only (evidently) unwritten, but contrary to the guidelines provided just where they'd be most likely to look for guidance (I'm referring again to WP:R and WP:R -- surely there are others, but you must agree these would be anyone's first stop). This is too much to ask. Phil wink (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a regular at RfD but would not have closed that as "delete". I can understand why BDD did, but I would have relisted it to try and get more input. If that failed then I would have either closed it as no consensus or retargeted per Phil's suggestion. Yes having some mention of the term at the target is ideal, but directing readers to the relevant content we have that doesn't mention it is normally going to be better than leaving them looking at unpredictable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it, though? Unless they're already aware of the connection, better to give them a shot at piecing it together themselves than to WP:ASTONISH. But I'll reopen the discussion if you'd like. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ASTONISH doesn't apply here. If you know what the topic is about you wont be astonished to end up somewhere relevant even if not wholly about the topic. If you don't know what the topic is you wont be astonished regardless of the target (unless the context is contradictory). I don't know how much additional input relisting will generate but I think it's worth a shot. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bananas as racist symbols
BDD: you said (in italics): ''I don't understand this edit. It looks like you were trying to do several things at once, and your rationale for removing my sourced content about bananas as racist symbols in association football was unclear to me. I could understand an UNDUE argument, but you cited it in the context of "rv unsourced and one-time use per WP:UNDUE". My content certainly wasn't unsourced, nor does it reflect a one-time use of the banana as racist symbol. As the article said until your edit, you can see Racism in association football for many such occasions. If "rv ref as not secondary" was meant to apply to this content, I don't understand that at all.''

My edit 1) removed an unsourced comment about adhesive uses, 2) removed a Master's degree thesis as a primary source, and 3) took out your content about bananas used as racial symbols in sport events. My main feeling for the removal of #3 was that it was not really about banana "uses" but rather "abuses" which likely number in the dozens of similar weird abuses. I felt it was WP:UNDUE for weight about banana uses and still feel this way. I do understand your point and the several references to banana abuses in the Racism in association football article. Thanks for the fair way of presenting this disagreement. Kind regards. --Zefr (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interests of NPOV, I don't think "abuses" should be necessarily omitted from a "uses" section. But you're not the first to revert this content, so I'll let the matter lie. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Linaria (genus) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linaria (genus). Since you had some involvement with the Linaria (genus) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

MDY dates redirect nomination
Could you please explain why you closed my RfD about MDY dates as no consensus (Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 21) when no one actually argued for keeping the redirects. P p p er y (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a very strong policy-based argument against deleting the redirects (cf. WP:MAD). Retargeting was suggested, but there wasn't consensus for that. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where were these redirects merged to? P p p er y  (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're better off asking the other participants and editors mentioned in the discussion. My role was only to check for consensus to act on them. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RMnac (2)
Template:RMnac has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. P p p er y (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories
There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Consideration (song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Consideration (song). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure of lacta- redirect discussion
Hello! I'd like to protest mildly at your closing this discussion: Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 18. As it was being closed (within a day or so, anyway) the redirect had been changed to point to lakh, which is where it is now, while I had not had a chance to respond. However, no need to make a fuss: at least early on this discussion was misplaced anyway, since it belonged at the target talk page, to decide whether or not to mention "lacta-" on the metric prefix page. I suppose I should continue on the talk page for the current target, and ping the people in the discussion here. Or is there any better way? Thanks for any suggestions. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Lacta- currently redirects to the metric prefix page. It was briefly retargeted to Lakh, but that was wisely reverted, since it was during the RfD. Did that address your concern? --BDD (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Well, it emerges that the base source for this purported Italian term was confusion on the part of the author Cardarelli, as detailed here: my commentary, and so I propose deleting all reference to it (both from the metric prefix page and from lahk). The redirect should obviously then be deleted; what should I do -- wait until the target section is gone, then start a new RfD? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you remove it with consensus, such as through an RfC or a less formal discussion with several editors, I'll delete it. I suggest notifying the participants of the RfD. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise -- I missed your comment here, and went ahead. I posted another comment in Talk:Metric prefix/Archive 1, referring to the quite extensive analysis in my commentary, and received very little response, but all in favour of deletion. So after a couple of days, I went ahead and deleted all reference to the putative Italian prefix "lacta-". Obviously, the issue of the redirect is strictly a separate issue, and depends only on whether or not the target is mentioned. If you think it is necessary, I will ping all the people involved to make sure they are aware of what has happened. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries, you're clearly not just acting unilaterally here. Why don't you notify everyone of the current RfD, and we'll go ahead and (try to) make that the final word. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did a mass ping, and we have several more comments, all in agreement. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Iron Man of the WWE and other recent redirects you deleted
Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_12 you closed as 'delete' but I don't think that was actually the result of the discussion. I had support to keep it from Ivanvector.

Consensus is supposed to be done in relation to policy. You seem to be responding as if WP:RFD is a WP:POLL/WP:VOTE. Many of the people dogpiling into these things don't have much to discuss at all aside from a word or two next to a clamor for deletion.

People calling for these deletions or supporting it are not actually discussing our existing policy on why to keep or removed redirects. If they are not doing that and simply making up imaginary policy on the spot, I don't see why their statements should be considered legitimate discussion or adequate to contribute toward a consensus. Ranze (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it could have been closed as anything but delete. HHH Pedrigree gave a very good counter argument to the one made by you and Ivanvector, "Because it's not an alias or a nickname. Just a promo. Not even WWE talks about Iron Man of the WWE in the website. Every week, a wrestler calls himself The Future, The Man, The Best... this aren't nicknames or alias." Skudrafan1 and 67.68.21.106, along with Lenticel to a certain extent, echo that sentiment. LM2000 expresses an opinion that its likely to be conflated with a wrestling event itself. Since I don't personally find the nominator's rationale particularly convincing, I'll leave them out of the tally, which would still be at 5-2 (6-2 if the nom is counted). Enough reasoning is expressed on the deletion side, a lot of RfDs are closed as delete with much less discussion. Best Regards, —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.LM2000 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

as you can see at Seth_Rollins, "The Man" can certainly be an established nickname for a wrestler. The doesn't necessarily mean I redirect The Man to Seth Rollins (since it's clearly a common and brief phrase that many others would use. "Iron Man of the WWE" on the other hand, is a lengthly and rather unique nickname. If other wrestlers were given the moniker that would mean you should make it a disambiguation page between Dean Ambrose and whoever else it was used for, not delete it. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless it is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, which is what the majority opinion seemed to express at the discussion in question. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

neither the word "novel" or "obscure" appears ANYWHERE at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12 so I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. I take it you're a mind-reader who just knows they must have been thinking of that? I tend to assess expressed opinions based on what people actually write, which was:
 * Crash_Underride "Non needed"
 * (this is not a valid reason under WP:RDEL)
 * LM2000 "not synonymous with Ambrose" and "easily confused with Iron Man Match"
 * (former is reason for disambig not deletion, provided no proof of anyone else called that; latter is untrue, "Man of the WWE" could not possibly be confused with a match)
 * HHH_Pedrigree "We can't include every time a wrestler calls himself "the XX of WWE". The sources only includes the promo and Saxton and Cole comentating a match (Commentators say a lot of thing)."
 * This firstly does not fall under WP:RDEL. Secondly, it includes false claims. We CAN include every time, the question is whether or not we should. WP:RKEEP supports keeping it under numbers 3+5. Pedrigree admits that commentators used a phrase to refer to the wrestler, and somehow thinks "say a lot of thing" somehow discredits that as a source. Michael Coulthard is a very notable person, what he says should be taken with greater weight than a comment from a newer commentator like Saxton. Ranze (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Skudrafan1 "To call this a "nickname" or an "alias" is misleading." + "Ambrose referred to himself as this *once*, somewhat off-handedly, in a promo."
 * The first ignores WP:RDEL, whatever we label this phrase, all that matters is its association with Ambrose, not whether particular Wikipedians think 'alias' or 'nickname' hold some kind of special status that things must conform to even though real life holds no such criteria.
 * The second is also false. I can't recall the specific date I created it. I brought up this problem on RFD's talk. It is unfair to bring up past deleted redirects against people without information like WHEN the redirect was created being available, otherwise they can't easily check their edits to see when it was done.
 * I'm willing to do the work though, and found it. As you can see at special:diff/703783866 I provided four sources:
 * Quibble as we might over whether these collectively make the name notable enough to be worth mentioning on the article, I think it's clearly supported as a redirect to him up until we can find someone else being described in this phrase, which nobody else has supplied evidence of.
 * Lenticel: "this isn't the actual nickname of the wrestler"
 * This is false, basically the problem is you have people just making up claims like this and moderators who take the objections as true without weighing the evidence. That's what I'm concerned about with you BDD. Here is evidence:
 * Beginning of Feb 1 Raw: Ambrose describes himself this way
 * End of Feb 1 Raw: JBL describes him that way
 * Feb 4 Smackdown: Ranallo and Saxton both describe him this way
 * User:67.68.21.106 "I agree that a term a wrestler once used in a promo does not qualify"
 * Yet again we have the problem of someone agreeing to a falsehood. This is not just a matter of Ambrose calling himself that at the beginning of Feb 1 Raw. Michael Cole (voice of the WWE) and both of Smackdown's announcers reiterate this as his nickname. Whether or not it's notable enough for his article, it is definitely enough to support a redirect.
 * Yet again we have the problem of someone agreeing to a falsehood. This is not just a matter of Ambrose calling himself that at the beginning of Feb 1 Raw. Michael Cole (voice of the WWE) and both of Smackdown's announcers reiterate this as his nickname. Whether or not it's notable enough for his article, it is definitely enough to support a redirect.

Whereas the supporter actually explained a valid reason for keeping it:
 * "sources do indeed confirm this is a name that he goes by"

I'm glad that nominated this re-listed for further input, but when the additional input is simply falsehood-parroting, this is not actually honest discussion happening.

BDD I believe as an admin you should look at more than just the numbers of people calling for something to be deleted. Wrestling is a polarizing sport. You have people who love wrestlers and people who hate them. Fans of a wrestler will support deleting a nickname they don't think is flattering, and people who hate a wrestler will support deleting a nickname they think is flattering.

You should have looked past the numbers and looked at the validity of the actual reasons being given. People who simply repeat false statements given by previous poster and give a thumbs-up on deleting are NOT engaged in "discussion". That's not what discussion is, and what was formed here and in the other pages you deleted was not a consensus. The pro-deleters gave made-up statistics to support their viewpoint and ignored arguments to the contrary. People are weighing in before they read in. It's a tyranny of the majority and you might as well move to change this to be called "redirects for polling" if you aren't going to push for actualy discussion to happen. Ranze (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by the decision. As a novel or obscure synonym not mentioned at Ambrose's article, its deletion was well within policy. It sounds like you're dealing with some bigger issues in the ANI here. I can comment further there if desired. --BDD (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicolette Frangipane
Despite 3 keep votes at this discussion, the redirect for "Nicolette Frangipane" was deleted without relisting. If a good reason is not provided soon, I am going to take this to WP:DRV. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to find better uses of your time. As I'm sure you know, XfDs are not a vote. It's about the strength of argument, combinations of middle and last names have been consistently found to be implausible search terms. Relisting is for when consensus is not clear, which was not the case here. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)