User talk:BDD/Archive 22

Please comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album). Legobot (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

John Connolly (journalist) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Connolly (journalist). Since you had some involvement with the John Connolly (journalist) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Coretheapple (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Happy First Edit Day
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee,  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 03:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Has it really only been 13 years? :P --BDD (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  17:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Dab mentions
Hi, BDD. The dismissal of MOS:DABMENTION in the close for the Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29 has resulted in problems with the page; please give MOS:DABMENTION its weight in subsequent closings. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, BDD. Your favouring of opinions that depart from a strict literal interpretation of the manual of style is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Please refrain from exercising common sense in future. Uanfala&#39;s sock (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Back to the Future
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Back to the Future. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roti
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roti. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Soldier's Oath redirect discussion
Hi, This is just to let you know that I've recently twice responded twice to you and User:PamD in the Redirects for Discussion section on Soldier's Oath / Soldiers' Oath. (I think the link might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_5?markasread=130496577#Soldiers'_Oath ). Best regards and wishes, —— Shakescene (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Delta 9
Hello BDD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Delta 9, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''claims to have had his music appear on notable releases. Also, after 10 years, another week at AFD won't hurt.''' Thank you. SoWhy 16:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

mind taking a look?
can you take a look at the JSTOR source of Draft:Fiscal policy debate. it's had a previous CSD to the article of the same topic, same creator for copyvio, and i want to be sure this isn't the same, before i approve the AFC. thanks ahead of time! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late response; I've been away. It looks like this has been resolved? --BDD (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Graduate Theological Union
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Graduate Theological Union. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Cryptid Whale
Hello, why is it you've restored cryptid whale? This is deep fringe territory, cites not a single reliable source, and, notably, consensus was two for delete, one to redirect, and three to keep. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's more to a discussion than counting votes. Most of the objections were due to lack of content, which restoration of the article addressed. While your WP:BLAR of the article was fine and WP:BOLD, it's also the weakest way to "delete" an article. Since I was evaluating a discussion about a redirect, quite apart from the merits of cryptid whales as a legitimate subject, my decision does not at all prevent you from bringing the article to WP:AFD to build consensus for outright deletion. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's going to happen with this is the usual situation: the cryptozoologists will lobby for its inclusion (Wikipedia is the prime vector for the moribund subculture), uninformed editors will confuse the deep fringe land of cryptozoology with some kind of academic discipline (usually either folklore studies or biology), and then eventually the article will just get scraped by editors familiar with the pseudoscience for violating a buffet of Wikipedia policies. Looks like it's back to the fringe theories noticeboard... &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Forest High School shooting
Now that the Forest High School shooting is talked about at the article regarding the school per the talk page discussion, I think that the discussion here should be relisted once more. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jax, I don't think that would be productive. If there's consensus to discuss it in the article, there can be a redirect. It would be on someone else to argue against it at that point if desired. As I look into it, the information that was presented as being about another shooting at a Forest High School actually regards Carolina Forest High School, and no shooting is discussed there. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Per your feedback, I reinstated the redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prince Harry of Wales. Since you had some involvement with the Prince Harry of Wales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice sought
I've been running into an editor the past week on my watchlist that drew my attention due to a few quirky behaviors, including some mild edit warring with various users over MOS and style type edits that don't even affect the visible page. I've come to suspect it's a clean start of a user currently blocked at their own request. I've had to leave the user several mild talk page messages about issues, that had led to blocks under their old account. I'm fairly convinced that it is them, but I am not 100% sure on the nuances of a fresh start here. The block on their old account was by you. -- ferret (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be comfortable emailing me the name of the old user? I'd like to know a bit more about their behavior prior to the block and how it checks out with the editor you're dealing with now. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent with details. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed
Back in 2013 you closed an RM moving Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons to Flowers Building. User:Doncram (the original article creator) has now done an out of process revert back to the original title (stating that the close on the 2013 move was a "crummy discussion and reasoning".) I am not sure how to proceed. I am reluctant to simply un-revert (reverting to the title determined by the RM consensus which could be viewed as edit warring). Should I file a second RM to confirm which title has consensus? Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you un-reverted, with the request that Doncram file a new RM. Thanks... That is fine with me.
 * Could you also review:


 * Talk:Masonic Temple Building (Oak Park, Illinois)
 * Talk:Mosque of the El Jebel Shrine
 * Talk:Champlin Memorial Masonic Temple (Boone, Iowa)
 * And there may be a few others... Unfortunately, Docram is on a bit of a crusade to undo RMs related to Masonic buildings. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you able to revert the moves yourself, or are you running into a permissions problem? You can use WP:RMTR for this if so. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Doncram and I have some history of contention, and he would take me reverting as a slow edit war... best if someone else reverted (an admin). Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'd recommend RMTR for quicker service in the future. Moves there will usually be implemented either by an admin or someone who does a lot of moving and non-admin closures of RMs. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will use RMTR for future cases. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Quorum of Twelve
There are still a very large number of links to the Quorum of Twelve that need to be edited to Quorum of Twelve (Battlestar Galactica). I don't have time to do this myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same thing? I wouldn't call that "very large" at all, and at least a few don't need updating because they were already using the Mormon sense. I can take a look later today, though.
 * I was also hesitant because retargeting to Colonial Day simply seemed like the least bad solution. I'm not familiar with Battlestar; will some of the resulting links be rendered nonsensical? I don't know. Better than linking to the Mormon body, I suppose. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Block
Hi. Could you possibly block me indefinitely? I saw that you’re in the “Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks” category.

If I am blocked, would it also be possible to have my user page and talk page fully protected, or at least my user page? WP:UPPROT says that user pages may be protected by request (but not user talk pages). Tantamounts talk contribs 05:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also been asked to do this, my response. I have no reason not to block at your request, but this is your second account being indefinitely blocked at your own request. It's my opinion that if you later return, you should request that this one be unblocked, and not make another third account. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I failed at improving my editing and am going through some personal issues at the moment, so I would like to take a break from Wikipedia. I will most likely return in the future, in which case I will contact one of the admins to unblock my account. Could you please indefinitely block me for the time being? I would also appreciate if you also protected my talk page! I don’t want to feel the urge to check my talk page for messages and don’t want any messages on my talk page at all when I’m gone from Wikipedia. Thank you. Tantamounts talk contribs 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has been resolved. I'm sorry your efforts to improve were not successful. Ferret's advice is sensible; you might consider contacting an admin, perhaps me, if you want to return and repurpose an existing account. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Languages of South Korea listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Languages of South Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Languages of South Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RfD
I have to call shenanigans on the Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 13 close. The delete rationales are refuted, the keep ones are not. You said you were trying to avoid a supervote, but it was a supervote, and not just a tie-breaker, but ignoring the stronger rationales. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Two respondents suggest deletion. The only rationales they offer (same as the nominator) are:
 * May be battlegroundish/pointy; plus a claim – with zero evidence of any kind – that it's directly a cause of "so much drama", which is not actually plausible.
 * It could have pointed somewhere else.
 * Two respondents say to keep, with the following rationales:
 * No evidence of disruption, and similar to many other humorous but vulgar redirects that we keep (NOTCENSORED)
 * Almost any more-or-less natural English shortcut point to other pages than they do, but we do not delete them. In fact, we tolerate potentially ambiguous project-space redirects all the time.
 * Other respondents joked around, and made an observation this way or that way but didn't strongly advocate anything in either direction.
 * Agree to disagree (or to discuss at DRV). I will observe, without judgment either way, that criteria for project-space redirects are less well defined. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started a DRV at Deletion review/Log/2018 July 25 to resolve this; however, like BDD I will be ducking out of the debate, and if the discussion closes as "endorse", that's it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, of course that would be it. We don't have WP:DRV2 – The Apellate Level.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Corey Stewart (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Corey Stewart (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yeah! Woo!
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yeah! Woo!. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 FINA Swimming World Cup
Hello!

I would like to create the 2018 FINA Swimming World Cup article. But this was deleted once. Would you undelet it, please? I do not know how should it be done. Herculja (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Herculja, I just restored it, but forgot there wasn't any history there! It was only ever a redirect to the main FINA Swimming World Cup page. Feel free to create an article at that title, though. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Herculja (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

requested move to United States federal government continuity of operations
I like your previous recommendations during discussion to re-title the article Continuity of Operations. I have requested a move and would like your vote of support at Talk:Continuity_of_Operations. There are other good alternatives but the bottom line is that some differentiation is needed to name the focus of the article which the current title does not provide. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Creation date of deleted article Labbayk
A number of years back, as a result of this deletion discussion, you deleted Labbayk. Can you tell me when the deleted article was created?

It was recreated in November 2014, and is up for deletion again here. One editor's argument for keep, though currently unsubstantiated, might not be as flimsy as it appears if the Labbayk you deleted was created later than January 2013. Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Worldbruce. The article I deleted at this title was created 30 June 2012. I don't fully understand what you're saying regarding January 2013, but I can answer the question of when the previous version was deleted, at least. Do let me know if I can be of further help. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

List friendly fire incidents listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List friendly fire incidents. Since you had some involvement with the List friendly fire incidents redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16
Looking at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 11, there now seems to be a rough consensus that foreign-language redirects to United States are appropriate as long as the language is spoken by a sizable population in the US as per Languages of the United States. Would that justify re-creation of Chinese-language redirects to the country? (Coming here because WP:DRV recommends it.) feminist (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not. I used to refer to a principle I called "RfD zen": that there are many redirects that should not have been created, but once created, should not be deleted. I think these should not be created in the first place, being consistently controversial and of marginal benefit. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BDD!


Happy New Year! BDD, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wheelbench
Regarding Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31: it was an R from merge, and these are usually retained to maintain the attribution in the page history. argued that in this case this does not apply because the merged text was later removed (by the RfD nominator, who has previously edit warred against the AfD consensus), but I don't think they're correct: it remains in the history, in public view, and therefore needs to be attributed to conform to CC BY-SA. Possible solutions are revdeling the now copyvio revisions of Wheelchair, or restoring the history as a subpage, but first please consider revising the RfD close. A consensus in violation of policy (WP:COPY) is not a valid consensus. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe. Such closes are commonplace. Is the concern that this content in our own edit history means we're violating... our own copyright? I admit I don't follow. If you can demonstrate that your understanding of this policy is correct, I'm quite amenable to such a solution, and will make sure to enforce it going forward, but as it stands, this looks like a difference of opinion, and one in which consensus is on the other side. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyright remains in the possession of individual contributors, not Wikipedia as a whole. By publishing content without attributing its authors (old revisions pages are still "published"), we are violating the terms of the license under which they released those contributions. See WP:COPY ("You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia.") and Copying within Wikipedia. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it sounds like I did need a bit of a refresher there. Per WP:RIA, I'm thinking a note on the talk page listing contributors would be the most appropriate solution. Keeping a "zombie" redirect is clearly not preferred, and a revdel sounds extreme. What do you think? (Also, I'm not clear from our documentation if anonymous editors have the same rights in question.) --BDD (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The published version of Wheelchair is the current revision, which contains nothing from the article formerly at Wheelbench. Since there is no content from Wheelbench at Wheelchair, there are currently no attribution issues. A potential copyright issue that can occur would be if someone were to add back the deleted content (which this can happen regardless of whether or not this information exists in the history, due to wiki-mirrors and the like). That edit would be a copyright violation unless Wheelbench is first restored and/or one of the alternatives listed here. If you are afraid of such a thing happening, the "record authorship" method by posting a talk page note (as BDD suggested) seems to be the easiest method. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would suffice too. My preference is restoring the redirect because it's our standard way of attributing merges and I don't see what harm this one does. But either way is fine, thanks for the quick response. I don't think it matters whether the author is named, anonymous, or pseudonymous.
 * I'm somewhat concerned that you said closes like this are common. It specifically says not to delete the page in R from merge and did bring this up in the discussion. I've never been involved in RfD; do you think it's something worth bringing up on the talk page?
 * I'm no copyright expert but that really doesn't sound right to me. That content is publicly accessible at this URL, where it is described as being under CC BY-SA, but no attribution is available. From a copyright perspective, I don't think it makes any difference whether we label the page as "old" or "current". It's still published. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there is a difference between old and current revisions because they have different disclaimers. Taken from the revision you link, it says in part (with my emphasis added) This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. This recognizes that old revisions may not be strictly compatible with the license. I'm not an expert on this either and I don't think there will be an expert opinion on the matter unless someone wants to send an email to WMF legal to get their opinion. I have advocated in favor of a talk page notice in the past, and an example can be seen at Talk:Qantas. Since that seems to be an amenable solution, I will put one together for Wheelbench shortly. I don't think it would be appropriate to restore the redirect unless some sourced mention of Wheelbench were to be added to the target article. If you are able to do that, I don't think there would be resistance to restoration at that time, especially since the material was removed in the first place for being poorly or un-sourced. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that's there because old revisions might contain minor copyvios that have been removed but not revdelled. It's not possible to retrospectively remove the conditions of CC BY-SA from others' contributions and we shouldn't knowingly break attribution. Talk page notes are I think a sub-optimal replacement for a proper page history. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We absolutely have to have attribution for everything that appears in the page history, unless it's simple enough that it can be ignored, like spelling fixes, vandalism reversion, or punctuation tweaks. If A is merged into B and we don't want to retain the title "A", dumping a list of contributors onto the talk page and making some note in the page history will work, but it gets in the way (who expects a talk page to have a list of names that exists for some purpose other than discussing improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages.  And there's always the chance that someone will edit the list improperly.  I prefer using a subpage (move wheelbench to talk:wheelchair/wheelbench and make it a redirect to talk:wheelchair), because our templates all say "A got merged into B, so A must not be deleted unless B is" and people will expect to find the history on a separate page, and it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the talk page or force us to link to a diff on the talk page where the names list is dumped temporarily.  But if people don't want to use the talk subpage approach, there's no legal or policy reason to object to the names-list dump.  Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, see Talk:Wheelchair. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict with Tavix​] Never mind, the situation's better than I expected. If all of the merged content's authors have also edited the target substantially, there's no reason to worry about retaining the subpage or dumping the names list, because all the names needed for attribution are there already.  With a page of this complexity, 77 edits by lots of people, it's almost impossible for that to happen (how often will it happen that all the major contributors to A will have also edited B?), but in this situation the situation's almost ideal: every single person who made a significant pre-merger edit to wheelbench has also made a significant edit to wheelchair, with the exception of Leannewheelbench.  We can resolve the situation by making a dummy edit to the page, and the edit summary can say something like "Leannewheelbench helped to write a page that was merged into this page".  Anyone properly reviewing the edit history will see this and know to include her (if you're not properly reviewing it, you couldn't catch a dummy edit saying "Some authors of this page appear at talk:wheelchair/wheelbench"), so the situation can easily be resolved.  Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks all—looks like this was resolved. To Joe specifically, why not just keep redirects like this? I admit it's a much simpler solution to the attribution question. But an active redirect will lead readers to believe we have discussion of something called "wheelbench" if they type it into a search box, or if it appears as a suggestion in the top right search box, which does them a real disservice and, frankly, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Nyttend's solution of moving a page into talk namespace seems novel, but could certainly work. And I agree that we need clearer guidance on this from the WMF. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations
-- Dolotta (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Woo hoo! Thank you! --BDD (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for Voltron
Thanks for your work on the Voltron characters I dunno about what you think about Voltron: Defender Of The Universe being redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series) full disclosure I started a debate on Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24.Dwanyewest (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome for the help. I'm really not familiar with Voltron, though, so I don't have an opinion on that question for now. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Jellybricks
Hi, you deleted this article in 2013. I'm interested in working on a possible restoration of it. Could you please userfy its previous content for me? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Draft:The Jellybricks. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument. Legobot (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RfD closure of Crusaders (DC/Marvel)
Hi BDD. This is in reference to your closure of Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 13. Was that done by mistake? At the very least this seems like "no consensus" to me. I ask if it was a mistake because, while you didn't !vote there, you did make a comment indicating a minor preference. Not a huge deal but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask you directly. Thanks. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 12:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant my comment in that discussion as a general point. I would stand by my decision, and I think it's one of those discussions where a no consensus decision would please almost no one (just one editor advocating an outright keep, which an NC would default to). I'm not necessarily opposed to reopening, but I'm also really having trouble picturing a different outcome here. --BDD (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Manlia
Hi, I disagree with this page move to a bare name. Most other pages for Roman gentes have retained the word "gens" in the title, and it was decided some time ago to keep their name like this. If you change this name, you would to do it for several dozens articles, see List of Roman gentes, something that should be decided by consensus first. T8612 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I haven't gone through them all, but it was misleading and unhelpful to readers to have "Manlia" red when we had an article on a topic by that name. I see a few other members of without disambiguation in their titles; I'm sure it's necessary in many cases (e.g., Gallia). Was there a specific discussion where it was decided to have disambiguation in the titles even if not necessary to disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the link in red does not refer to a woman (all women of the family were named Manlia)? See the long discussion here, and also here on "unnecessary disambiguation". In short, I'd say that a move to "Manlia gens" would be acceptable as it keeps "gens" in the title. In fact many of these gens articles were initially disambiguation pages that have been become lists (and I think they should be considered full articles by now), hence why they have parenthesis in their name. A discussion about this on the Wikiproject may also be needed if you want to rename all the pages without parenthesis. T8612  (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. If it's satisfactory in this case, I'll move to Manlia gens, allowing Manlia to redirect there. I think there's a more solid foundation for arguing "X gens" is the name of the topic, which grants WP:NATURAL disambiguation when necessary. As such, I'm afraid a lot of well-meaning editors like me are going to see "X (Y)" when "X" is red and make these sorts of moves, unaware of local consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. T8612  (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic church and deism
I think you mean "redirect converted to an article"? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops! Yes, thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)
A discussion has started about wrapper templates of Link language. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ( is my main account.)