User talk:BDD/Archive 24

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Keto diet" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Keto diet. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 143.244.37.117 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope you can close Ser Amantio di Nicolao
I hope you can/will close the redirect discussion for Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I think it would be silly to prolong the discussion. Others have lost interest because the needed clarification was achieved. Please close and allow us to "turn the page"! --Presearch (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just commented there too, asking a question of you, and also a question of the editor who opposed such a hatnote. --Presearch (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Cup Foods
A second old rfd tag needs to be on the talk page for Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_13. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, though you're welcome to do this sort of thing yourself in the future. N.b., since old RfD doesn't support multiple listings, I prefer to convert to old AfD multi and set . --BDD (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2480 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --BDD (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate the kind words. I'd like to think I'd be your #8 :), but have faith in your judgment and that of all voters in this election. Best of luck to all. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't voted yet, and things may still change. As said, for me no candidate is "impossible" this time - which is a first. You probably know that I feel the case - "my" first and last - suffered from too wide a scope. I didn't know the ultimate guide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the context, Gerda Arendt. I may have missed something, because I don't see infobox-related edits from you recently at L'ange de Nisida. Was this several years ago? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking. No, recent editing. I didn't add an infobox because that's a featured article, and I wasn't sure about the author's stance. Did you check out #Donizetti on my talk? You could also look at Rita (opera), where I did add an infobox recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw #Donizetti, though I missed the past about the edit in 2016, so if this was the edit in question, I understand a bit more. It sounds like you are approaching this fine—there was the issue of the potentially misleading edit summary, which I'm sure was not done in bad faith, and you're adding infoboxes or not with sensitivity towards other editors. We can't ask for much more than that! --BDD (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ;) - The question, though, was about infobox "squabbles" not being recent, and now we had this recent Rita (and others). It looks better now than yesterday, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably we'll always have to live with such disagreements, and can only hope that they'll be cordial and that everyone can accept that their view won't always carry the day. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I voted for you ;) - What do you think of Castor et Pollux? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! I hope you won't regret it when I say I have very little opera knowledge, though as a Gemini I feel some affinity with the twins.
 * I do think the version with both infobox and navbox looked quite nice, though. This resembles a dilemma in the library world, specifically how to catalog and where to place a work. The article layout as it stands now is better for the reader who wants to learn about multiple Rameau operas; leading with the infobox is better for the reader specifically looking for Castor et Pollux. Both have some appeal, but the latter seems self-evidently the better approach, given than the article is about the specific opera. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and it it doesn't take any opera knowledge ;) - look again, and perhaps also at the bottom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I missed the navbox at the bottom. Having both that and the top-right navbox didn't make much sense, so I think Primefac was right to remove the latter. I think readers expect navboxes at the bottom, but I wish we had some reliable data on how they use navigational templates. I know infoboxes are helpful for structured data, e.g., Wikidata. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seth Cumming


A tag has been placed on Seth Cumming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb Election
Good luck with the elections! SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom candidate questions
I recently added two questions for you at: I welcome your response. You may find my comments here relevant: Too many questions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/BDD/Questions
 * Answered there. Thanks for your patience, David Tornheim, and your willingness to pare down to two. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And thank you for answering.  :)    --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Article: List of Largest Empires, I found serious errors in the article.
Hello I liked the wikipedia articles, however, I found very serious errors in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires I spoke on the talk page and I was completely ignored, but the numbers are not in accordance with what is studied in college, I think that instead of looking for secondary sources of politicians, it should focus, what the documents say, written by people from the time of each empire, and of course there is a variety of old maps and land names, which say the conquests more accurately, what do you think of that? if it is not based on land conquest, what is it? The list starts off badly: "The size of the empire on this list is defined as the area of ​​dry land it controlled at the time, which may differ considerably from the area claimed. For example: in the year 1800, European powers collectively claimed about 20% of the Earth's land surface that they did not effectively control. [8] Where estimates vary, inputs are ranked by the lowest estimate." From the beginning, denying historical facts, the list meaning that all nations lied, '''but I read very good articles on wikipedia, but this list clearly needs a good correction, or a good justification, because it denies all the facts of the story, which diminishes the credibility of those who will read it, and then there is another one thing, they use the same source for all empires, which is even more serious, can you help or improve the list so that it becomes more reliable? Thanks.''' (2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:81D0:786E:DDB7:AD26 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC))
 * I checked your comment on the article talk page too, but I'm not sure exactly what information in the article you think is wrong. It sounds like you're proposing original research, which could be very valuable, but Wikipedia is not the place to engage in it. However, if you've been taught something different in college, the sources your instructors use could be valuable in improving our article. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ranked choice voting RfD
Hi BDD, I just wanted to offer some comments about the RfD on Ranked choice voting. I'm certainly fine with the outcome, as it was my original proposal, but I do find it odd that you determined no consensus but nevertheless went ahead and retargeted anyway, and worry others may as well, or even consider it out of bounds. I agree with you that it was not the forum for reassessing consensus on whether ranked-choice voting is a synonym for instant-runoff voting, I meant to present a simple question: should this redirect target where the hyphenated version does? I only brought it to RfD because there was past debate about its target (though I suppose that reopened the content discussion). I understand why the other redirects were added to the discussion, but that really changed or at least broadened the question of the RfD, from keep/retarget to where to target. I think there really was a rough consensus to retarget, even though some of the !votes and comments were a little confusing, leaving the larger question for another time and place, as you argue. The real problem is ranked-choice voting in the United States represents RCV as comprising both IRV and a separate method, single transferable vote, but as you say, that is best handled at a discussion at Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States. In retrospect, perhaps I should have BOLDly retargeted then started a discussion about the larger issue (which I intend to bring up shortly), but with this redirect's particular history I erred on the side of RfD. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see if anyone does raise an objection here. I know small details can sometimes really make a difference, but I don't think that that's the case here; regardless of your position on how to treat the term, there's no logical case for treating its capitalization and punctuation variants differently. I think you would've been fine to BOLDly retarget the one, but can't fault your decision to defer to a discussion. It looks like participants didn't really get into the issue of the variants per se, instead commenting on the underlying content question. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom

 * I believe I'm second from the right. As usual in pictures, I've blinked! --BDD (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

 * Congratulations, BDD...and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:



All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
 * Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
 * Oversight: Joe Roe
 * Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
 * All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
 * DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

*Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one think I like, it's giving advice. . Especially when I'm safely out of the war zone.  DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG! You may have seen my userpage hatnote, so I'm tickled to succeed you on the ArbCom chart. I will very likely take you up on that offer for advice. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, BDD - we're looking forward to great things from you and our other new arbs!! Try not to feel pressured despite having WP's world on your shoulders. SMirC-chuckle.svg You'll have plenty of support, praise and more than your share of criticism. What more could an arb want? SMirC-congrats.svg And Happy Holidays to you! Drink plenty of eggnog with lots of rum...or better yet, forget the eggnog! SMirC-xmas.svg  Atsme  💬 📧 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I messed up
So, I was thinking back to that discussion about redirecting the List of Asexual, Non-binary, and Pansexual characters in television and radio page to the List of LGBT characters in television and radio page. I know I said that "pansexual, non-binary, and asexual characters are not on that page." However, looking back, I realized that statement was incorrect, because I was actually thinking about the List of feature films with LGBT characters page, and I somehow confused that with the List of LGBT characters in television and radio in my mind. Oops. As such, I support the ultimate decision to redirect the page to theList of LGBT characters in television and radio page. That's all I had to say. Oh and happy end of year and a new year to come! --Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Case acceptance
I am pretty sure that was unnecessary since the case is already well under way? – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/997924114
 * Yes! Sorry, got my wires crossed. Good thing I didn't say decline! --BDD (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

1980 vs. 1988
BDD, I'd like to ask you what disruption you think will be allowed if the DS for AP2 covers 1980-present versus 1988-present. I would like to hear your reasoning, considering that there have been no editors sanctioned in the last four years for violations of the DS in the years 1980-1988. I'm sure that you have reasons that may well involve events that ArbCom is required to keep out of public view. If the latter is the case, please just say so. I am not asking for a peek behind the curtain and I recognize there are good reasons for lack of transparency. If this is the case, I think the discussion I posted may be slightly misleading and would like to at least acknowledge that. Thank you and best wishes for the New Year. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm not considering anything non-public. I may well endorse a 1988 cutoff, but share the concerns of others that excluding Reagan might be going too far. I do appreciate the work you put into your analysis. Let's see how things play out. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I personally haven't seen much Reagan-era disruption, which was part of the reason I started looking into the logs. I will wait on the rest of the committee's input. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Copy of the deleted article Oliver M. W. Sprague
Hey there, I found you on the list of admins willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I am currently writing bios of notable economists and am planning to do Oliver M. W. Sprague next, but noticed that the article about him has been deleted a couple of years ago according to WP:G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users". Would you mind providing me of a copy of the article to (hopefully) save me some work? Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Caius G.. Yes, I'm willing to do so. Would you like it restored to mainspace, draft space, or a user subpage? It's not obviously unsuited for mainspace, but you may want to check external links and otherwise tidy up first. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD, thanks for your quick reply. Having it restored as a user subpage under User:Caius G./Oliver M. W. Sprague would be best! Thanks a lot! Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Flying Windows
Did You Just Delete The Page Flying Windows On 22:10 PM December 16 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.71.229 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I did delete it in 2016, yes. You should be able to see a link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary. Since that was a while ago, I wouldn’t necessarily object to a new article or redirect at that title. —BDD (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Batman&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible arbitration required for Conservative Party (UK)
Hello,

One of my recent edits to Conservative Party (UK) has been reverted by Czello on the basis there is 'no consensus'. The edit in question is changing the description of party's position on the political spectrum from 'centre-right' to 'centre-right to right-wing' to include the broad range of factions in the party.

There is by no means unanimous agreement for / against this change but from looking at talk:Conservative Party (UK), there are more contributors favouring such a change. Additionally, from looking at similar pages which have been the subject of similar disputes, such as Conservative Party of Canada, it can be seen that there is precedent for such an approach. I have noticed Czello has previously engaged in an edit wars over this, so I thought it best to seek arbitration immediately.

Many thanks, Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Crunchynotsmooth. This is a long ways off from needing arbitration—but that's not a bad thing! I think it's reasonable to say there's consensus on the talk page for such a change, but it's not beyond question, and I'm sure Czello is acting in good faith. The most comprehensive talk page discussion dragged out over a few years, and subsequent attempts at change have been unfocused, and sidetracked by attempts to label the party far right. A request for comment (RfC) is probably the next step to more thoroughly determine consensus.
 * In the future, if you're considering arbitration, see Arbitration/Requests. Arbitration is a last-resort measure, and successful requests for arbitration need to demonstrate other attempts at resolving the dispute. I hope this helps. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Redundant redirect
Hi, in this deletion discussion that you closed, where four redirects that included the the typo Judiasm (instead of Judaism) were proposed for deletion, there was indeed no consensus to delete all, but overall 2 (out of 4) where in favor of deleting Shiva (Judiasm). This is a clearly redundant redirect, and when typing "Shiva" the misspelled option doesn't even show up, as the other delete voter said. This is a case where discretion based on common sense is expected and I think that this redirect should be deleted now. When possible, please review it. Thanks, Bezrat (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasonability of a typo can be subjective. Typically, multiple errors make for a strong deletion argument, while single errors such as this one (transposing two adjacent letters) comes down to individual judgment. Everyone in the discussion made valid arguments, so there's no way I'd rule a "delete' on a redirect with simply a 2-2 split (if I found it worthy of deletion, I'd vote myself rather than WP:SUPERVOTE via close).
 * That said, if you'd like to start a new RfD for this redirect individually, you may proceed, and I won't consider it disruptive. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, and think "supervoting" (when done properly) is sometimes necessary and useful. I likely won't relist it, thanks anyway, Bezrat (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:President of the Republic of China&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1006597976
FYI, the Arbitration/Index/Principles page is generated by a script from time to time, so this will be overwritten at the next time it's run unless we actually change the link in the decision itself KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah! All because they used shortcuts differently, huh? Oh well. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Question
I'm thinking about opening a request for amendment about the stuff I brought up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Why_no_sanction_against_Paradise_Chronicle?

I believe that all of this combined with the ISIS accusations should have given Paradise Chronicle a minimum 1 year topic ban.

I also will ad some more comments by Paradise Chronicle, and I will explain in more detail.

I believe this was largely overlooked by ArbCom.

Is it acceptable for me to open an amendment like this? Do you think I have a plausible case? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this would be very unlikely to succeed, given that the full committee just reviewed a case with further claims against Paradise Chronicle. I don't think we would amend the case in this way. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor complaint
Report abuse of power. Dear BDD, I suspect and administrator is committing abuse of power, I need to know how to report this. She is deleting pages that don't meet speedy deletion criteria and giving the users that ask to get the info they got deleted in order to fix it in a very rude manner, in some cases borderline offensive to people that just want their original text to review it and fix it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupypau (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to save you checking, Pupypau is talking about me. See Deletion_review. Deb (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Error in Title. how do I change the title of Padel Tennis World Championship
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Error in Title. how do I change the title of Padel Tennis World Championship. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD. Would you mind taking a look at this Teahouse question? I boldly moved the page since it seemed like it would be a non-contentious move based upon what you did for Padel (sport) back in 2013. If, however, the move was improper in anyway, then let me know and I'll try to cleanup any mess I made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, Marchjuly. Thanks for checking. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Windows 92
Did You Just Delete The Page Windows 92 On 16:10 PM 30 May 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.71.229 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. See deletion discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 23. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Halo (game)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Halo (game). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Mop" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Mop. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Michael Flynn&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Robert Byrd&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update
Dear BDD,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here. --Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Internet celebrity vs. Internet personality
Hey, BDD, I saw this discussion and wondered if maybe the other direction is a more neutral term? I agree that it would be good to be consistent in our terminology, but celebrity just feels slightly more breathless to me? Got there from James Charles (Internet personality) because I was actually looking for something even a bit more neutral than personality. —valereee (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee, I don't love "celebrity" either. I prefer we be consistent, but in hindsight, I wish I had pushed to change to "personality" back then. Moving Internet celebrity is probably the first step. I agree that "Internet personality" is a bit squishy too, but I can't think of anything better. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Although we do have Celebrity, and obviously personality won't work there. Maybe Celebrity really is what we're looking for. Every synonym besides personality is worse. :D —valereee (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Iymen Chehade&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Publish the drafted article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sunirmal_Basu# It is written according to Bengali Wikipedia article: https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81

Wikifulness (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikifulness, you should use the AfC submission process on this draft. There is a blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!" towards the top that you can click. At a glance, it seems fine, but note that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source—see WP:CIRC. Rather than cite the Bengali Wikipedia article, I suggest using the same references here. Note that non-English sources are allowed, though anything you can find in English will be helpful for your fellow Wikipedians. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARC motion typo
"The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --BDD (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Maurine Whipple&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:South Korean audio engineers


A tag has been placed on Category:South Korean audio engineers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Male artists has been nominated for deletion
Category:Male artists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Baltz
The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions- Plus see ANI discussions here and here. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft(s) involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
 * Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
 * Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
 * Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
 * Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.
 * Hi William. I already modified my RfD comment based on your previous links. (The ANI discussions, IMO, are about 90% editor behavior, 10% about this issue at best.) It's all well and good to have our discussions, but I do insist on a readers first approach. The fact is we have a redirect that says to readers, "Wikipedia has content about this person." Do we? Yes, but if he isn't mentioned, we're really putting the onus on the reader to decipher that. Was he the pilot? The survivor? A medical examiner? The status quo just suggests some sort of relationship.
 * Notably, this case does not involve BLP concerns whatsoever. It is also not about a list that risks becoming a memorial. However, as I said in the discussion, I'm not opposed to deletion as a second choice. If there's consensus not to mention him, fine, but let's not have the left hand and the right hand working at cross purposes. I'm perfectly willing to see the redirect deleted. I hope you will consider the reader's perspective and be open to having him mentioned. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been other discussions too, I just don't recall them. We've had whole lists, partial lists, one survivor, one dead local politician, etc etc. We also these guidelines. In those two ANIs, the complaintant had next to no support for adding that one person. Which reminds me, we have that plane crash- Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303's talk page too. The types of additions have varied but the outcomes haven't varied. They are either don't list or no consensus. In the case of the latter, that has meant the previous consensus stand....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. While I still think such consensus sometimes needs to yield to other concerns, you've convinced me that we're best off with deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:CallMeCarson&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sam Lutfi" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sam Lutfi. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Jay (Talk) 18:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam Lufti for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Lufti 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/Sam Lufti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Osama Lufti for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Osama Lufti 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/Osama Lufti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblocks
Hello BDD! I see you've just unblocked a number of accounts because of a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee. These accounts were blocked for suspected sockpuppetry, but I wonder: did the Arbcom appeal also take into account the serious WP:CITESPAM issues all of these accounts engaged in, as reported and discussed here? I spent about three full days going through these accounts' edits to decide which edits needed to be reverted and which ones were actually constructive, and even went through a spat and misunderstanding about this with another editor where my edits were being blindly reverted because I was reinstating edits made by socks (see the explanation at my talk here). In short, since these accounts were very disruptive and created a lot of work for those cleaning up behind them, I would like to know whether there's any guarantee that they will not return to their old cite-spamming ways? Regards, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, we did look into the particulars of the case. Of course, we can’t give any guarantees that there won’t be future problems, in this case or in any. If there are, the usual procedures can be followed. Thank you for your vigilance. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A regular unblock request only succeeds if the blocked party recognizes that they did something wrong, why it was wrong, and that there's a need to avoid said wrong in the future. I just wondered whether this had happened here with regard to the cite-spamming. I trust now that it did, so I have no concern left, except perhaps that I would like an admin to watch the talk pages of the accounts that are going to be active (as the unblocking admin would normally do). Sorry for all the questions; it's neither your nor my fault that the process here is a bit untransparent, it just means that I have to ask if I want to know. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I typed that previous response out on mobile, so I hope it didn't seem too curt. Just know that what you're asking for is a normal part of the unblock process. We decline many more appeals than we accept, and even an unblock is neither a repudiation of the blocking admin nor a blessing of the blocked user's conduct. And while a decline is final in that there's really no other place for a blocked user to turn, an appeal is not a "get out of jail free" card that immunizes the user against further sanctions. In fact, one user we unblocked earlier this year was blocked by the community not long after
 * I'll keep an eye out, and I'm sorry for the trouble the initial conduct caused you. While ArbCom is not perfect, rest assured that we don't unblock capriciously. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very thoughtful reply! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)