User talk:BDD/Archive 21

Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on proposed Speedy Renaming
Please see my comments on your proposal to rename subcategories of Category:Footballers in Italy by club eg Category:A.S. Casale Calcio Hugo999 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lucky Charmes
User:XPanettaa has asked for a deletion review of Lucky Charmes. 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 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Way back when
Well ... This is probably a blast from your very distant past. Interesting what finds I find when reorganizing old pages for archive cleanup purposes... Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! I saw the first link and was about to write a response about how much I've changed, until I saw the second link and realized it was very much like what I was about to say. Guess this tiger's stripes haven't changed that much. I don't know how serious I was being with the Nelson Mandela comment, but of course, I denounce and reject anything I said in high school. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
why you have deleted my page, i did nothing wrong, you will pay for thisRoger Delacroix (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger, this is no way to make a constructive request. You haven't even specified which page you're referring to (and as for it being "your" page, see WP:OWN.) I ask that you withdraw your threat. I will not engage with you further if you show no interest in respectful discussion. --BDD (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do withdraw my threat I didn't want to make harm to anyone, I was just angry that you did not even put a deletion notice on my sandboxRoger Delacroix (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see now I closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Luke de paul/sandbox. When another user (not me) nominated it there, he added a deletion tag as is appropriate. IMO that should've been accompanied by a notification on your talk page, but that's just a good practice, and its absence doesn't make a deletion discussion illegitimate. I see the admin who deleted the sandbox again under speedy deletion criteria has also been in touch with you. I don't know if the IPs editing your sandbox were you or not, but apparently there were copyright concerns. I hope this clarifies matter. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BLPLEAD
Just to clarify, the MOS for BLP states "Generally" and then provides several examples where the nationality is not listed, or is actually a composite of their employment or role (i.e. Queen, King or otherwise). It is generally a bad habit to list nationality as part of a profession (i.e. British Politician) but that is unfortunately the bad habit of many articles - and football is one of the worst. This conflation of role and nationality is more complex when it comes to football, most articles list the nationality of affiliation. For British players, this means they are listed as Scottish, English or Welsh, and for those with multiple nationalities then we generally list the one that they have chosen to represent. However this leads to subsequent edit wars as even if you choose to represent one nation, this does not mean you naturally lose your second nationality. For a player that has represented a national team, one of the easiest and most practical solutions is to allow the mention of the national affiliation. Ideally Ozil's article would say "he is a professional footballer for the German national team and Arsenal FC" but, again, the habit is to re-arrange such things initially to avoid repeating sentences like "German professional player for German national team". Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? That has not at all been common practice in my experience. To sample a few of the first footballers that come to mind:
 * Harry Kane is an English professional footballer...
 * Carlos Tevez is an Argentine professional footballer...
 * Landon Donovan is an American professional soccer player...
 * Where do you get this idea that it's a "bad habit" to cite nationality this way? For an international encyclopedia, nationality and profession are two of the most basic defining characteristics of a person. I'm aware of the problem that can arise when citizenship nationality and sporting nationality conflict, but that simply isn't a problem with Özil, who is an ethnic Turk but completely German otherwise. Calling him a Turkish footballer would thus be substantially misleading. So yes, generally we should give nationality. Where that is unclear, sure, let's try something else, but that's simply not necessary here.
 * I've reverted back; since "German footballer" was the longstanding, stable language, I'd request that you start a discussion on the article talk page, or perhaps at WT:FOOTY, if you want to build consensus to change it. But see also WikiProject Football/Players—not only is what I'm discussing an established best practice, it's also been upheld in multiple discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad habits are widespread, it doesn't make the habit correct. Harry Kane is British, not English, for instance, and in the first sentence says "he is English... and plays for the England team" which is largely redundant. Actually, it needs only to say he is "professional football player for the English national team, and Tottenham" which solves the issue that we have effectively got his nationality wrong. But that isn't how people have a habit of writing (thus, a bad habit) when it comes to football players. There is already a discussion at WP:FOOTY and there have already been several others over the last few months (and couple of years) and all come to the same conclusion; where they have played for a national team then it's cleaner to use that. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you're right, this is more than a bad habit. It's a matter of the WikiProject—IMO one of those most professional ones—actively prescribing the wrong thing. Thanks for letting me know about the current discussion. I'll chime in there. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

CfD discussion
Thanks for closing Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 1. Would you please be able to add a rationale to your close? It doesn't seem to me at all clear that there was a consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review request
Thank you for your recent contributions to Politics of Virginia. Your help in peer review of Virginia congressional districts and/or Virginia Conventions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any contributions or comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Change Username
i want to change my user name can i do this?? Is there's anyway to change my name???FOTIA EINAI MAI PAREI... (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi FOTIA EINAI MAI PAREI.... See Changing username for how to do this. The permissions required to carry it out are beyond those of normal admins such as myself. This page lists users who can; look for those with "en" under Languages spoken, or the languages of your choice. If I can assist you in the process of making the request, please let me know. It may be more efficient to speak directly with one of the renamers, however. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Murica listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murica. Since you had some involvement with the Murica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 71.163.180.2 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please block this vandal
Hi BDD, please block IP. He or she has already been warned, but is still at it Thanks, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to someone else doing it, but I won't do it myself just yet. The IP just received a single level-3 warning, which is unusual, and for an edit that might have been legitimate (though I agree it probably wasn't). Certainly the edits at Web Summit were vandalism, but he or she hasn't edited in several days, and the edit history is so sporadic. Should they return, though, and continue vandalism, I'd certainly do it. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BDD. I will keep an eye. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!
Hi BDD. Really hope you see this today - check your user page - "This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 11 months and 11 days." You don't see that everyday!!! Drop me a line if you think you are the right person to help me with an opinion on an article deletion, or perhaps you can suggest someone better suited. Keep up the good work and enjoy your 11 11 11. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks, Gabriel! That is really cool. I'm happy to offer advice on deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks BDD. Here is the query: Charcuterie Sibilia was created 16 September 2013 by user Candleabracadabra (since identified as a sock and consequently blocked). According to this page, it was speedily deleted, which I understand is easily reverted, even by the creator. The deletion does not appear in the history log, but the next day it was moved the user's page by the editor who posted the speedy delete notice, being reinstated two days later.
 * My immeadiate reaction would be to invoke speedy deletion, but I understand that one it has already been used, it cannot be used again. To propose for deletion is time consuming, especially if it comes to responding to arguments pro and con.
 * Besides the article, the editor also created a number of redirects to the page, including one from the name of the person who runs the establishment, Colette Sibilia and added the name of either the establishment or that person to numerous pages, under the "See also" section, all of which I have now deleted. These are the links that are left. My question — and more importantly, as a test case for me to learn from, so I can decide for myself next time —, what would you and other editors experienced in deletions do with a case like this? Thanks foor the help. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. To start, I think you're confusing CSD with PROD in a couple of ways. First, I wouldn't say speedily deletion is "easily reverted, even by the creator." Once deleted, it takes an admin to restore, same as any deletion. Creators are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags (though they're technically able to do so). Compare to PROD, which anyone may contest and remove the tag from, even the creator. And while an article that's had one PROD tag can't be given another (again, the system doesn't actually prevent this), I don't think there's any restriction against repeated CSD tagging, as long as the criteria apply.
 * So in this case, you could tag with CSD. G5 would fit, since it was created by a user in violation of a block. If that didn't apply, I'd probably recommend full discussion at AfD just because it doesn't look like a no-brainer to me. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are absolutely right — I did mix up the different processes. Yes, I was confusing tags (which can be removed) with actual deletions. Thanks for the tutoring, much apprecriated. I have followed the G5 route, as suggested (among others). Hamba kahle, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I appreciate the compliments. And don't worry: the distinction between CSD and PROD can be confusing. I even removed a CSD tag from one of my articles once! --BDD (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Naxuan at DELREV
Hi, there's a deletion review which has some tangential relevance for a close that you made: Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Pssst
You closed the wrong discussion. I speedied the one above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ack! Thanks for letting me know. There must've been a new section added after I hit "edit", and I didn't notice I was in the wrong place. Fixed now. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 22
Just curious, in this discussion's case, how did a "no consensus" close result in the redirect being kept as is? I would have thought a "no consensus" close would have resulted in a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the status quo. A "no consensus" resulting in something besides keeping as is is the exception, not the rule. So it's not "no consensus that this should redirect to the project", it's "no consensus to change this". --BDD (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Next redirects
I checked the monarchy I'm most familiar with after participating in Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 8. I found four redirects of a similar nature and listed them, then realized they that they were created by the same user who created next king of Thailand. That prompted me to check their redirect creations, and I found next Dalai Lama, next Russian presidential election, next king of Tonga, next king of Morocco, next king of Bhutan, next emperor of Japan, next king of Jordan, next king of Bahrain, next king of Lesotho, next king of Denmark, next king of Norway, and next president of the USA (which has already been discussed). What do you think is the best course of action here? Should I list them all at RfD? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not seeing this before, Godsy. I could see an RfD becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK. "Next Dalai Lama" in particular looks fine. Proceed how you like, perhaps depending on how the Thai discussion goes. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Germany
By seeing a red link, I realize that the template was deleted. I missed the discussion. I saw it used as a shortcut for Wikiproject Germany on article talk pages and copied that on hundreds of articles that now miss the information that project Germany takes care of the article. I confess that I am not eager to replace it on those hundreds of articles manually to the longer form. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, and apologies for not seeing this before. Ugh. That discussion. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect nominators to take care of all uses before starting an RfD like that—indeed, it could be very disruptive. But counting on the closing admin to do it all is a great way to prevent you from having a closing admin! I'll do some more cleanup from it today, and I confess I wasn't thinking of non-mainspace uses, which I should look into for the ones that redirected to project banners. I pinged everyone who voted to delete, but I don't think any of them have done anything about it. It's a common enough Little Red Hen scenario: the other animals want something done, but they're not willing to pitch in to make it happen. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a nice explanation, but the question "what can we do" is still open. I fixed the most recent occurrences manually but see above. Can a bot fix the talk pages? (632) I noticed today that we have WPG, which I think is a worse shortcut, not telling people a thing about what it is. I use Classical and Opera a lot, - will those be next to be deleted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If I can use the TfD holding cell, that would be great, but I don't know if it can be used on redirects, or titles that have already been deleted (though it wouldn't be hard to temporarily restore if the latter is a problem). Because yeah, it will take a long time to do by hand.
 * Based on what I've seen in years at RfD, Classical is probably safe, because it's not meaningful on its own. I would not continue to use Opera, given Opera topics. And my first thought was that WPG would be safe, but it looks like in mainspace, it only means Winnipeg (cf. WPG). That's only judging by precedent, though. I would definitely recommend putting any shortcuts you're invested in onto your watchlist so you can speak up in time if they ever show up at RfD. There has been a definite trend with such redirects, but it's not ironclad. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but still no answer to how do we correct the 632 wrong talk pages? I know an easy solution: restore the redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ps:Opera has 610 inclusions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be more inclined to do that with a mainspace template. I expect a bit more hardiness from editors than readers. If you want to force something, you're welcome to use DRV. I'd be happy to see this overturned if the result were a good standard to follow going forward in complicated cases like this. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to force anything. I'd like to see a template to WikiProject Germany working on these talk pages, to which other editors made good faith edits such as assessments, in many of the cases. Their work is deleted as well, the number of articles under project Germany is shown wrong which includes several FA and GA quality articles. It can't stay that way, do you understand? - You are of course not the right person to ask, but tell me where else to go? DRV meaning what, please? Whatever, it sounds like something that will take time, instead of just realizing that this went wrong. The case is not at all complicated: it helped to simply type Germany instead of the more complicated WikiProject Germany. I confess to hate camelcase ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that work is "deleted" or lost, but it does lose some functionality. The code/source for the page will still have something like, so when the template names are fixed, those parameters will be "live" again. The only way the work would be lost is if someone tried to "fix" this by removing the template altogether, which would be inappropriate. But until the template names are fixed, I assume the pages won't display in the WikiProject's maintenance categories, for example.
 * WP:DRV is Deletion review, which would mostly focus on whether this RfD was correctly decided. I would not have initiated it myself, but I do think there was logic to it. Why should go to a WikiProject tag and not something more reader-facing, like DEU or Germany topics? If you want another shortcut that avoids camelcase, I think WPGER is unlikely to ever be challenged. WPG is maybe safe, as discussed above... --BDD (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So If I'm understanding the problem correctly, all instances of need to be changed to  along with all of the parameters, correct? If so, that's a fairly simple task for WP:AWB to complete. All you'd need to do is file a request at WP:AWB/TA and someone can take care of it. I might even look into it myself if it's not done by the weekend or so. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 20:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh, is it that simple? Because there are several things I'd list there. Everything from here could be a task, though I may still just do the smaller batches by hand since I can remove the templates where they weren't supposed to be anyway. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a find and replace feature on AWB so even those like myself who don't have any coding experience should be able to figure it out. I'm not at the computer where I have AWB downloaded, and probably won't be for a few days, otherwise I'd look into it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Looks like Frietjes is taking care of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, that one has been fixed. I will take care of the rest over shortly.  in the mean time, you can re-delete Georgia. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(album) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (album). Since you had some involvement with the (album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A page you started ((album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating (album), BDD!

Wikipedia editor Velella just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Already under discussion as a potenntial deletion"

To reply, leave a comment on Velella's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

AC/DC (electricity) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AC/DC (electricity). Since you had some involvement with the AC/DC (electricity) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cigar guy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cigar guy. Since you had some involvement with the Cigar guy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Balangu
Hi, I notice that you've created Talk:Balangu with just the WikiProject Disambiguation banner. I was just about to let you know that talk pages containing only this shouldn't be created, when I realised that Balangu was at RfD, and now that it's closed I'd expect the talk page to contain the old rfd notice, so you did well in creating it. However, you don't seem to have placed that notice. Is there any reason for that? Is it discouraged on pages that aren't redirects anymore? – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. I used to not do it because the template would say "This redirect", but I jut noticed that I changed it over three years ago so that's not the case! I should probably get back into the habit. And maybe drop "dabify", as it's kind of jargony. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cc-by. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cc-by redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-block request
Hello. This is George Ho. I am logged in as "User:Gh87 in the public computer", an alternative public account. I want to self-block this account for now. The time shall be indefinite. However, how do I have the alternative account self-block in all other sister projects? Meanwhile, I can still continue using the primary account "George Ho". Is this all right? -- This is George Ho actually (Talk) 06:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ For sister projects, I'm afraid you'll have to contact admins there. I imagine there's some sort of global block mechanism for really disruptive users, but I wouldn't have access to it. If such a thing exists, perhaps a bureaucrat would know. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Relinquishing most of my rights
Hi, again. I want to cease my rights as a "File mover". Also, I do want to continue using the account "George Ho". However, I want to give up my rights to edit EC-protected pages. That would mean I downgrade myself to just "autoconfirmed" user, like everyone else. Someday, I'll request a permission to retrieve my rights. However, now is not the time. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. I don't believe I've ever changed user groups before, though the process seems simple enough. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Please comment on Talk:Radha Madhav Dham
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Radha Madhav Dham. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Time to pick your brain...
Here's a good one for you. I find it amazing that there are several pages and redirects on Wikipedia beginning with "Political position", but Political position and Political positions don't exist. I'm pretty sure that by now, an article has been created which these titles can redirect ... but I can't figure it out. I mean, the fact that Wikipedia has yet to define this phrase ... well, pretty sure you get what I mean. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Political views redirects to Ideology. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would expect that to be synced with Political ideology, but Ideology may well be the better target. Political ideologies points to Ideology, with a main to the List of political ideologies. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation. My first thought was that it's a pretty self-descriptive phrase without much meaning on its own. Certainly it's ambiguous—besides those "what does politician X believe" uses, "political position" can refer to a specific political job (see for example Reserved political positions, List of Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions). If we think of the former usage as primary topic, what could we follow? There's Political ideology, which is maybe more of a suite of positions, but its target doesn't look like a good fit to me. Political belief is red, but is used at Political philosophy. "Political philosophy" can be a sort of synonym here, but the article describes it as an academic discipline, while nodding to this "vernacular" usage. I admire your intent, but so far I'm not seeing an option I want to jump on... --BDD (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought process there. Per your words, maybe there's a need for a solution, but I'm looking at the wrong problem. Instead of "fixing" Political position and Political positions, would you think that all of the articles (not redirects) listed in Special:PrefixIndex/Political position should be moved to less ambiguous titles to better define the phrase "political position"? Steel1943  (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What did you have in mind? If they had titles like "Political positions (Donald Trump)" I'd see more of a problem. I just sort of doubt the titles are going to be very confusing for readers. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably should have been more specific since I was referring to the use of the phrase "political position". I was thinking more like "Political ideologies of Donald Trump" (using your example). From your thoughts and from what I understand from it, "political ideologies" is probably not as ambiguous as "political positions". That, and from what I see, most of the "Political position" articles that exist refer to the individuals' ideologies and not what positions they've been elected/appointed. Steel1943  (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see now (I think). As in "political position of Barack Obama" = "president of the United States"? That seems like WP:NOTFAQ territory, though. And I think we'd usually speak of an individual's political ideology, singular. Not always, I suppose. "Barack Obama's ideologies include liberalism, environmentalism..." maybe. But we're really saying things more like "Barack Obama supports gun control, opposes tax cuts for the wealthy", etc. "Positions" seems like better neutral terminology too. Being seen as an "ideologue" is almost always negative. Side note, I believe the Conservatism article used to have the absurd claim that conservatism is "the negation of ideology". A prominent conservative intellectual did say this, but I think it goes to show the desire to rhetorically distance oneself from the i-word. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then I think I may be out of ideas for a precise, neutral word/phrase to describe the "Political position" subject of the "Political positions of..." articles. Since I'm trying to look at this as a new user and assuming lack of understanding what "political position" means, but ... I think I may be about as lost for a solution as when I started. I'm thinking I may just have to redirect the titles to Ideology to give the readers something, but I don't know anymore. Maybe "political position" is a subject without an article yet (WP:REDLINK). That, and now I wonder who created the first "political position" title on Wikipedia so I can figure out why they did; I'm almost to a point where I believe that the phrase was made up on Wikipedia, but then was picked up for use by others, probably by reading Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors (kind of like Other nonmetal; I'm sure you remember reading that rather exciting discussion.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Hindoo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hindoo 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/Hindoo 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. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC Notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Selective assassination
Selective assassination is a silly phrase because it mean assassination, targeted killing is chiefly used as an euphemism used to get around the Ford Executive Order 11905. Therefore selective assassination is better redirected to assassination because it means assassination as assassinations are always by definition selective. For example if someone is assassinated and their bodyguards are shot and killed in the the exchange of gunfire then if the target is hit and killed they are assassinated, if a bodyguard is killed in the attempt then they are murdered. The point being that an assassination is always selective even if it involves mass murder (for example downing a plane as not all the victims in such a killing would be assassinated -- they would be murdered (collateral damage)). -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion Help Scout
The main complaint at the time was that Help Scout did not pass notability standards. I believe that this company has since reached that milestone and I respectfully request for the page to be reinstated. To be fair, I do not know what is on the page, but I was going to create one myself when I noticed that it had previously been deleted and so I wanted to reach out to you first. I am more than happy to provide 3rd party links demonstrating it's notability or whatever else may be requested. Thank you for your time! --Clarse (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Clarse, I'd appreciate if you shared such links. Are you affiliated with this company? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, BDD, I am not affiliated with this company, was just looking to research it and other companies in the field. No problem, here you go:            (See "HelpScout")->

They are also linked to and many of their integrations are with companies listed on Wikipedia. I am happy to provide more links if needed! Thanks for the quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarse (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of most of those sources, though that doesn't mean they're not reliable. Do note that Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a reference. How about I restore the old article to Draft:Help Scout, and you can have that as a base and fix it up to get it ready for mainspace? --BDD (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! And yes, Wikipedia has it's place as a useful repository for information, but not as a main source. Thanks for your consideration! --Clarse (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good luck! --BDD (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have now edited the draft, mind giving it a look and see if it's publication worthy? I appreciate any and all feedback! Clarse (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized this is not your duty! Please feel free to ignore my previous message :) Sorry again! Clarse (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, Clarse. You've done some really good work here. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help!! Clarse (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidential inaugurations
I have the raw list from when I made the nomination. If you're going to use d-batch, that might make it easier for you. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tavix! Mind putting it at User:BDD/deletebox? --BDD (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

🔞 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🔞. Since you had some involvement with the 🔞 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Album-oriented rock
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Album-oriented rock. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

New York-New Jersey English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New York-New Jersey English. Since you had some involvement with the New York-New Jersey English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LakeKayak (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking to redirects
How do you link to redirect pages without having the page redirect to its target? --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I typically use Template:No redirect. You can use "-r" as a shortcut for it. The first parameter is the page you want to link to, and the optional second parameter is how it displays. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sophia McColgan
Hi, sorry to trouble you. In December 2016 I understand you deleted this redirect page to Ballymote. The related content in Ballymote#People seems to fail WP:PROPORTIONAL. An option (and not the only one, and maybe not my preferred one) to make that content WP:PROPORTIONAL would be to recreate the content as a stand alone article. I've drafted a WIP in User:Djm-leighpark/Sandbox6 to see how it would seem. If becomes article protection may be appropriate. I am unsure on what I have moved to the Joeseph McCoglan section, especially as that too might be not WP:PROPORTIONAL and because I have added relevant recent content to it found when checking anything recent on Sophia McCoglan. There is also a redirect from Joeseph McCoglan to the Ballymote page. Slight to hard with repeated WP:VD of the Ballymote article last night.

The point where I came from was the non WP:PROPORTIONAL content on the Ballymote page relating to this content (noticed when adding other content to that page). Have added relevant to talk to talk:Ballymote.

Not sure what WP:COMMONSENSE,polices and guidelines and best practice is. Suggestions welcome. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

NB: relevant Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No trouble, though I can't really speak to the notability of this person. I don't think the RfD should at all prejudice the outcome, though. That was just a narrow question of "should this person's name redirect to the town?" (And in general, I think the answer to that question is almost always going to be "no".) --BDD (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Better yet, I've simply raised the matter of Category:Musical families on Tony the Tiger's user talk page. I daresay Xfd need not be involved at all. We'll see. thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, it was merged at Cfd two years ago. I've raised the matter there, after all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RWBY
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RWBY. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11
Seems to me that consensus was more for redirecting the term to Human sexual activity. But, like I stated, we'd first need to include sources using the term. The term will no doubt be blue-linked again. Best to go ahead and get the target right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion was somewhat close, but I didn't see consensus to retarget anywhere. The phrase "rough sex" doesn't even necessarily mean human. I agree that there should be sources if the title is repopulated. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand why you closed it the way you did. "Rough sex" rarely refers to non-human animals in sources, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cc-by-sa. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cc-by-sa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 13
Hey BDD, it's good to see you closing discussions at RfD again! Could you take another look at the 1000 in art discussion? The nominator was in favor of deleting all years in art redirects, which would be all years from the 1400s on down. I think the redirects that mention the given year at the target are helpful, so I narrowed down a list on the talk page of the redirects I'd be in favor of deleting. Ironically, 1000 in art isn't one of them. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thanks for the kind words. Life has been busy, mostly in good ways. I'm glad that there are admins like you now and I don't have to worry about the place shutting down without me. :) --BDD (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm glad to hear that life's going well for you. After shouldering most of the RfD closures for several years, you've been long overdue for a break anyway! -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlashing of ClueBot_NG
Hi BDD. Could you please unsalt ClueBot_NG so I can make it into a redirect for Cluebot NG? Thanks  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Combs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Combs. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion of Stupid Watergate
I thought I should let you know I went ahead and undeleted Stupid Watergate. You deleted it as "vandalism", but it's not; it's the name John Oliver has repeatedly used to refer to this scandal. I don't know whether this is the best redirect target, but I don't see any reason not to have something there. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I shouldn't've assumed it was vandalism just because of the pejorative tone. Still worth RfD, though. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirect "good articles" at DRV
Hello again. The redirect "good articles", which you deleted, is listed at Deletion review/Log/2017 June 9, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

XFDcloser
Hi and thank you for closing those lingering RfDs that were clogging up the log pages. Just a suggestion: if the outcome of a discussion applies to all of the redirects listed, then using the XFDcloser script saves some work: it will apply the action to all the redirects and Oldrfd-tag their talk pages at a single click. – Uanfala 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks—in hindsight, I should've done so! --BDD (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28
Hey there BDD,

Sorry to dredge up an ancient discussion, but I just got around to taking a look at this. I haven't edited regularly in a good long while so I'm not sure of the proper procedure, but what would be the best way to merge the history of the deleted article List of iPhone applications into the larger of the two cited, related, inclusive lists - List of iOS games (vs List of free and open-source iOS applications)? The history of this article is relevant because it details the earliest iOS applications and those that were highlighted at early WWDC keynotes/Stevenotes back when it was known as iPhone OS, not iOS. Thanks for your help with this. ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, I'm not adept at histmerges but I'll do what I can here. First, let me make sure I understand the situation right. Did List of iPhone applications contain history that was merged into one of the other lists? If so, there should be some sort of restoration for attribution purposes. If not, no restoration is needed, though I'd be happy to restore it under a different title if you simply want access to the history for improvement of other articles. Let me know. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The short answer is I don't know. I was not involved with the creation of either list (games or the open source) and I since I can't access the history of the deleted list, I can't check to see where or how data from the original list might or might not have been included in either article. But both lists are subsets of the larger article and there is information that was in the original list that is not currently present in either list, based on what I can remember.
 * After doing a quick check of the history of both currently available lists, I'm inclined to think that the open source list might be a better fit due to how and when it was started. The games list looks like it grew more organically. My only edits to the game list was mainly a redirect to the parent list soon after it was created. Let me know if you need additional information from me on this.
 * If you prefer, I'm ok with temporarily restoring the history of the deleted list somewhere in my userspace so I can do some more digging to see which current list is a better fit based on what information may or may not have been copied to either article. I'd prefer just merging the history directly to the open source list, but I understand if you want to take this intermediate step first. Up to you. Thanks, ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 20:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I took a look at the deleted edits at List of iPhone applications, and there really isn't anything there of substance. There were a couple of page moves, and then everything else is fixing of double redirects. The deleted history is at List of iPhone OS applications. But I don't see any indication of a merge. List of iPhone apps is still around. Let me know if you find that history helpful, because it should probably be deleted in the spirit of the January 2016 RfD (if the history is helpful, I could instead move it without leaving a redirect). I'm a little wary of restoring old articles for curiosity's sake, with no indication of a merge, though I wouldn't mind if you inquired with another admin about this. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm indeed. It looks like there were more similar articles than I realized at the beginning: This turned out to be a way bigger project than I originally anticipated. My main concern was finding information about those apps that were highlighted by Apple at WWDC in the very early days of the iOS platform and possibly adding this information to either the Apple media events article or History of iPhone or possibly creating a separate list (something like List of iOS apps at WWDC, assuming that would work as an independent article). I can compile this information from scratch, but I know that a good chunk of it was already written in one of these lists. I think it was the List of iPhone OS applications, but I don't know for sure. Regardless, it isn't *that* big of a deal. This is clearly going to take a bunch more work than it is worth. Thanks for looking into this regardless. ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * List of iPhone applications
 * List of iPhone apps (I agree. This should have the same fate as the Jan 2016 RfD.)
 * List of iPhone OS applications
 * List of App Store applications
 * List of App Store applications (Science) (I think I accidentally linked to the deletion discussion for this article in my original comment... I meant to link to the List of iPhone applications discussion as I did in the header. I have no clue how that happened!)
 * List of iOS games
 * List of free and open-source iOS applications

Please comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Asking a favor of you
Hey BDD, since I see that you have been active recently, I have a favor to ask you, if you feel comfortable. I have a request that apparently only administrators can perform since what I am attempting to accomplish involves moving a page and 300+ of its subpages. I developed a method to perform this myself as an editor with the page mover user right, but I now found out that I would definitely hit my "moves per (time period)" limit if I attempted to do this ... since I just hit it doing other moves. Compared to the method I developed, since you are an admin, instead of my like 15 steps (and needing some repeated), an admin would only need 4 steps (and none repeated.) I wanted to do this myself since the moves would be contributed to me, but getting it done now means more to me than having the contributions in my name. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, Steel1943. Let me know what you want, and of course I reserve the right to back out if I'm afraid of breaking something. But give me some clear steps and it should be doable. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks BDD. Of course I didn't expect you to just blindly accept whatever I am asking you to do! That would an insane expectation in my part, for sure! Anyways, thanks for offering to possibly perform this task. What I'm requesting is the movement of all remaining subpages of Abuse reports to respective subpage titles of Abuse response for records/archive purposes. Here are the steps as they should be performed by an administrator:


 * Move Abuse response to Abuse response (temp) without subpages without leaving a redirect.
 * Move Abuse reports to Abuse response with subpages with keeping the redirects (leaving redirects).
 * NOTE/WARNING: As an administrator, all 300+ subpages of Abuse reports should be eligible for movement at the same time; administrators should have no limit to the amount of subpages that can be moved simultaneously. Also, there will be several subpages that cannot be moved because they will be blocked by existing pages: The blocking pages will be existing redirects and subpages created after Abuse reports was renamed Abuse response, so is expected and perfectly fine.
 * Move Abuse response to Abuse reports without subpages without leaving a redirect.
 * Move Abuse response (temp) to Abuse response without subpages without leaving a redirect.
 * END


 * If you can do this, thanks. If you either cannot or will not, thanks for at least taking the time to consider this request. Steel1943  (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear—thanks for the directions. But just to be sure, where subpages can't be moved because they're blocked by existing pages, no further action will be required on my part? Also, is there a discussion that decided this or something else that I can point to in the move summaries? --BDD (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct: When a subpage cannot be moved due to a blocking subpage, the blocking page is what should be there and no further action is necessary. In regards to discussion, there hasn't been one; the venue which these pages represent has been marked historical for a few years. Since the venue has been shut down since 2013, there is next-to-no chance of controversy associated with these moves. So, as far as something to state in the edit notice, maybe something like..." Requested by Steel1943 - performing cleanup to marry subpages of Abuse reports to Abuse response, allowing subpage searches via Abuse response/Filing instructions to return all appropriate pages "(There's a search box in Abuse response/Filing instructions that only provides subpages of Abuse response; such subpages cannot be found if they are subpages of Abuse reports.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing (I hope): should I always have the "Move associated talk page" box checked? --BDD (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Yes, make sure the "Move associated talk page" is checked. (And, of course, if the talk page move is blocked by an existing page, that is okay.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. I got an error message trying to perform the first step:
 * "To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (4.0404171943665) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead. [WYN7UApAIDMAACpBR2EAAABM] 2017-08-03 19:36:55: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"
 * Haven't seen that before. Any ideas for making this "multiple smaller operations"? --BDD (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I got that message as well after performing some other 100-subpage moves yesterday. (By the way, you didn't break anything.) But step 1 ... the step to move the main page to the "(temp)" title? I would have suspected that error would not happen unless you were on step 2. Steel1943  (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I hope)! Yes, I initially got that message on step 1. I crossed my fingers and tried again, hoping the server just wasn't as busy, and it went through. (I forgot the move summary this time, though I doubt that made a difference.) Does everything look in place now? --BDD (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's sort of done: You managed to move the pages all the way to "Wikipedia:Abuse reports/207", but anything after that alphabetically didn't get moved. Anyways, I'm not going to ask for you to do that again in fear of something breaking. Either way, the amount of subpages attached to "Wikipedia:Abuse response" is greater than it was before, and for that, thank you! Steel1943  (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. I should've looked further down the page. Well, let me know if I can do anything else. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. By the way, I just found some information regarding bundling a large amount of subpage moves at Moving a page; turns out that your subpage-moving limit is the same as mine (100). Well, I might as well laugh out loud now; I thought administrators could do anything! Steel1943  (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha... I wonder if 'crats could do it. You could always ask Jimbo. ;) --BDD (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Self-block
Hi. Can you please block me indefinitely? Papí • talk 17:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List of ancient roofs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of ancient roofs. Since you had some involvement with the List of ancient roofs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Need Help
I create a page with Capital letter but I cant move this to PREM KHAN to Prem Khan. please move this.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiah1460 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Western painting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Western painting. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)