User talk:BDD/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Deception
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deception. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School
I think the current Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School needs to be deleted as well, to move the current talk page with all the history there. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the article, as I'm not an admin. But both the article and the talk page have been moved now; it should be ok. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commission on Elections
I'm quite confused by your comment, as I left a note on the article's talk page shortly after your first note. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I just noticed your comment on that talk page, so I reverted myself on yours. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
mea culpa, I think it's back now Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Citation needed
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Move
Are you going to move Rupa Ganguly (article)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I'm not an administrator, so I can't move articles to existing titles; Roopa Ganguly already exists as a redirect. Per the RM policy on non-admin closure, I've tagged it with db-move, which will cause an administrator to delete the redirect and make the move as requested. In hindsight, I think could have made the move myself (see WP:MOR) since no edits had been made to Roopa Ganguly since its creation, but I made an edit to it by adding the db-move tag. Oops. I sometimes forget non-admins can move pages over redirects in certain circumstances, so I usually forget to check to see if I can. I'm hoping this will help me remember. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, over redirect move could be done! Okay, someone'll do it now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734
I stumbled across the discussion on Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734. Most printed sources say that the Engravers' Copyright Act (not "Engraving Copyright Act") was passed in 1735. Before 1752, the year in England began on 25 March (not on 1 January). That’s why you regularly find publication dates with double years such as 1705/6 or 1723/24 for dates within the period 1 January through 24 March for years before 1752. It is a fact that on 5 February 1734/35, William Hogarth and fellow graphic artists George Lambert, Gerard Vandergucht, John Pine, Isaac Ware, George Virtue and Joseph Goupy signed a petition presented to the House of Commons in favor of the legislation. The first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1734/35, the second on 2 April 1735, the third on 11 April 1735. Eventually, the bill was passed on 25 June 1735 (not 1734). See Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, volume 2 (1992), pp. 39-41. For more details, see David Hunter, "Copyright Protection for Engravings and Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain", The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, volume 9, number 2 (1987), pp. 128-47. See also Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1735
 * http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/commentary/uk_1798a/uk_1798a_com_107200712278.html
 * http://www.armeconomist.com/lecture/wto/08trips/International_Copyright.pdf
 * Karl Maria Michael de Leeuw, Jan Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (2007), p. 96.
 * You're welcome to request the move again, but as the closing administrator found the 1734 form much more common, I think you'll have trouble. On the other hand, noticing that Engraving Copyright Act doesn't exist, we could move it there and explain its association with both 1734 and 1735. Engravers Copyright Act and Engravers' Copyright Act are red too, but I think since the article has already been the subject of an RM, further moves should be considered controversial and discussed in another one. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritic-related moves and Talk:Bac Kan
Not sure why you relisted this RfM. Maybe you hadn't seen this or this about relentless diacritic-related moves wasting peoples' time. LittleBen (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't gone through ANI archives and I'm not sure what that sockmaster has to do with Vietnamese diacritics (the only mention of which is you saying he isn't involved). I'm sorry you see the issue as a waste of time, but I think the discussion over diacritics is worth having. And of course, participation is optional. Maybe no one will contribute and it will be closed as no consensus in a week, and maybe more editors will help build a stronger consensus—we need not rush to a decision. Now that I look at the RM closer, I think I'll contribute myself. To the extent that anyone is being harassed over these discussions, that's unfortunate and appropriate discipline should be enforced, but that shouldn't distract us from the substance at hand. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Warish
Jenks is inactive for last few days. Though I am article creator and only contributor there, I need some expert RM suggestion here Talk:Warish. Can you please post your opinion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mercy (Duffy song) requested move
Hi BDD. I've moved this as per your closure and tagging. Unfortunately we now have a large number of articles linking to Mercy (song) that need to be updated to link to Mercy (Duffy song). Interested in pitching in? I'll help too. Regards, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I always try to do my best to follow through on the RMs I close. I may not get to some of it until tomorrow, though. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the instance at Duffy. In my experience, these templates can be the source of a lot of these incoming links, but the system takes a while to recognize template edits in the WhatLinksHere. So if you're checking articles that don't seem to actually link there, that's probably why. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Málaga Airport
Please take a look at Talk:Málaga Airport. There is an awful lot of discussion going on for a speedy close. Reopen? Apteva (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably should have expressed this somehow besides just an edit summary, but I saw this not as a speedy close but as a procedural one. When an article is moved to a proposed destination before discussion ends, there isn't really one right way to proceed. Until I edited Don't move articles at AfD to add a corollary, I don't think there were ever explicit instructions not to move an article which was the subject of an ongoing RM. So I ask myself whether the move was consensual or not. If not, I figure trout the nominator and resume discussion. But it reflects consensus, I usually let it lie unless someone objects. I don't like to see that "The request to move... has been carried out" notice.
 * Anyway, I was a bit confused by the discussion at Talk:Málaga Airport. I see you proposing a move, Dicklyon making that move, and a third user arguing for the official name. If it's just him or her favoring the old name, perhaps he or she should open a new RM. I understand your desire to keep discussion open, but if you're truly neutral on this issue, why not just step back and let the editors who want a name change speak for themselves? Of course, if you don't favor the Málaga Airport, then I've badly misjudged the situation and the discussion indeed should be reopened.
 * ... was that confusing enough? --BDD (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I opened the RM, but was not taking a position on whether the move should or should not have been done. Dicklyon proposed the move by making the move, and this was less than 24 hours after having been asked to use RM to move airports - and was opened because the move was immediately questioned. My opening the RM was simply a procedural action. I had no reason for reverting the move, because a week later when the RM was closed, the result could have been to uphold the move, and one move is better than three. In other words I could not have improved on the two moves that a no move result would create, but I could have detracted from the number of times the article had been moved. I found it ironic that Dicklyon would ask for a speedy close, and right after it was closed, not only they but someone else continued the discussion - so if I had done the close, I would have just deleted the close box and let the discussion continue, with the RM still open. I just thought that re-opening the RM would let those involved "speak for themselves" more easily. I see that all of this is moot because a second RM has already been opened (although in a confusing manner). Apteva (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. The whole thing is a bit confusing. But I suppose now we just let the new RM run its course. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Admin
I have replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another reply in same page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

dab page!!
Are you going to start a dabpage here Nigamananda? --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are only two people that the term can refer to, we're better off using hatnotes; cf. WP:TWODABS. Is there a third person or topic we should list there, or will hatnotes be sufficient? --BDD (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see there's also Nigamananda Bidyapitha, which should be sufficient for a dab page. I'll investigate whether Paramahansa might be the primary topic. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Steven Amstrup, BDD!

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

"Nice work!"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Please comment on Talk:The Shawshank Redemption
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shawshank Redemption. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James S. Denton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to link to Freedom House. Thanks, DPL bot! --BDD (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism (according to Wikipedia)
Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm? What did I do? --BDD (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted to post it at User talk:JDDJS. --Niemti (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was meant for someone else, but I had coincidentally just edited Spriggan. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question in Sialing classification RFD
Hi BDD. A while ago you created Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 4. I've asked a question there about adding two more redirects to the list you provided. Do you have a view? --Stfg (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

bot fixing
I saw you moved Template:Lay Cath Spirituality to Template:Lay Catholic spirituality but I wanted to know if a bot will go by and replace the template where it is or need we do that manually? Thanks. There was a similar thing that happened when I created a category with a typo "univerisities" and then filled it using copy and paste. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 11:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a bot will do any cleanup related to the move, but I don't think we have to manually either. I've checked a few articles that use Lay Cath Spirituality and they all seem to be displaying the template properly. It's also possible that a bot has already fixed this. See Knights of Columbus or Opus Dei, for example. If you come across any cases where it's not working, I'd be glad to help out. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed that it did a redirect. I was just hoping to avoid that if possible. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You could nominate Template:Lay Cath Spirituality for deletion at Redirects for discussion. If there's consensus to delete there, I'll happily help straight out the transclusions. I'm not sure other editors will go for deletion, however, since the redirect does no harm. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Amstrup
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been too busy to check back Wiki perhaps a mail...
 TheSpecialUser TSU 03:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hi. This is to let you know that I have proposed multiple page moves at Talk:Disability judo classification and have also proposed a move at Talk:Disability racquetball classification. I am sending the same message to everyone who commented on the previous round of move requests for these articles. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Page move
Hey, you closed the move request at Talk:Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders but did not move the page (and as a non-admin I'm not sure you'd be able to). Was this intentional or accidental? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The move is pending an administrator deleting the redirect that's holding up the move. For the procedure for these non-admin closures, click the link after my signature in the RM. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

BDD, thanks for your service in closing RMs, but I fear that these non-admin closures are likely to lead to more problems than solutions in some cases, especially given how persistent Apteva has been on contesting moves involving hyphens and dashes. On the Talk:Paris-Orly Airport and the other Paris airport, you didn't say which way you decided to move, apparently ignoring the expressed preference for Paris Orly Airport over my original proposal for Orly Airport. You might want to take another look, or be prepared for some questions about that. I've also expressed my puzzlement about your relisting comment at Talk:Richmond – San Rafael Bridge. I think that if you're going to be doing non-admin closes, you need to earn more respect by displaying a clear understanding of the arguments advanced. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I only specify where something is moved if it's not to the destination indicated in the RM. Paris-Orly Airport is being moved to Orly Airport, as originally requested. I thought there was pretty even amounts of support expressed for that name and Paris Orly Airport, and with the less controversial Charles de Gaulle move being carried out, I thought consistency made the original proposal more desirable. With discussion open for over a month, I thought it was time to make a decision one way or another. I could've called it no consensus, but only one editor seemed to like the current title. As for the Richmond – San Rafael Bridge RM, by "No one seems to like the current title" I meant "No one supports keeping the current title." I'm sorry if that was misconstrued as a statement about value judgments or something. Did you object to the relisting itself or just the wording? --BDD (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I thought the Paris airports were going the other way, but I'm fine with it.  The bridge I thought should be speedily closed and moved as uncontroversial.  No big deal.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lizzieandpaulv2
I reverted your close here because Kww did not delete User:Lizzieandpaul since the CSD criteria did not apply. Legoktm (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch. I only saw that the article named in the section heading had been deleted by Kww. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ray of Light
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ray of Light. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Tech
I am putting together an RM for Virginia Tech here. Kauffner (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Under "Talk:List of people from Minneapolis". Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Arrows
I suggest not bothering to change all the wikilinks to the Arrows GP team as it will be renamed very soon and they will have to be fixed again anyway. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your comment on my page, yes, you angered me. One of the bugbears of my life is well-intentioned but slapdash people making situations worse and then expecting thanks. Not going to happen. It was abundantly clear from the discussion that "Arrows (F1)" was a bad choice. It may well not have been clear to you whether AGP or AGPI would have been the better option, but if that were the case then you should have left well alone and not charged in like the proverbial male bovine on a crockery shopping spree. From someone as apparently experienced as you the crass and ill considered nature of your action was especially irritating. What you should have done is contribute by suggesting winding up the discussion, maybe offering to mediate if there were any controversy over a new name. At the very least you could have initiated the technical move request process. As I was the one to get that ball rolling on that process I fail to see how I contributed in any way to slowing down the resolution of this problem. Closing move discussions, or any discussion, relies on the closing editor actually putting the time in to fully understand the issues and opinions covered. You did indeed have previous form in this and you were advised just a couple of days ago that "if you're going to be doing non-admin closes, you need to earn more respect by displaying a clear understanding of the arguments advanced". Sound advice that you should heed. As for the best place to contact you, I am not in the habit of repeating myself ad nauseum in every possible forum. I posted my comments where they would be seen by the greatest number of affected editors. If you decide to walk away without a look over your shoulder then that's your indaba.  Pyrop e  22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll start fixing incoming links immediately. I wasn't really in a position to initiate the technical move process since I wasn't aware of the issue. I understand your desire to post where your comments will be seen by the most affected editors, but just remember it's always good form to contact someone directly when you think he or she has screwed up. Anyway, it's cleanup time. If that doesn't make you feel any better about the situation, I'm sorry, and I hope we can all move on as soon as possible. --BDD (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles
– Fayenatic  L ondon 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Teen_Kanya_(2012_film)
Please add your opinion in this RM Talk:Teen_Kanya_(2012_film). I have no problem whether you support or oppose, everything is alright for me. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be a bit complex.
 * I started and article and named it Teen Kanya
 * I felt the article title could be "3 Kanya" following official website and poster.
 * I requested a move.
 * But, I was more satisfied with current spelling, so I opposed my own propose.
 * I asked Jenks24 (RM admin) to have a look. He felt my oppose of my propose was sound and closed the RM.

Still you can help by checking whether the article should really be moved to "3 Kanya" because official website and poster uses it or current spelling is okay! If you think the article should be moved, please start a new RM using h3 header there! If possible I'll try nominating it for DYK.--Tito Dutta (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you can help
 * There's not much to choose from there, so I'd default to the source used in the news sources. Some very cursory research I performed suggests that "teen" is a romanized version of the Bengali word for "three." Especially if that's the case, I think the current title is fine. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, 3 is pronounced three in Bengali (as it is "three" in English). The alternative spelling in lead was terrific idea, I forgot about that! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had noticed the 1961 film before, but it just occurred to me if it's always known as Teen Kanya, it may be preferable to credit the newer one as 3 Kanya for natural disambiguation. Hatnotes could link the two. --BDD (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction read above 3 is pronounced teen in Bengali. And ya, good point since the previous film of Ray was spelled Teen Kanya, the new one can be named 3 Kanya too! Moreover the director follows numerology (second last question here) --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be bold and make the move, then. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Request move common mistakes and issues
Hello, I have started preparing a note on common mistakes and issues of WP RM. Please see this when you have time: User_talk:Titodutta/Essays/Requested_Move:_Ideas_and_Opinions. I'll copy paste this message in two more users' talk pages who are also active in RM discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hager II
I thought Wikipedia was based on sources, and all sources list "Peter Hager 2d". This seems to have been standard at the time when the subject of the article lived. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have anyone else listed as 2d? I think that's an antiquated typographic convention, like &c. I think 2d looks quite awkward. If you really think it's right, I won't contest the issue. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Steven Gray (basketball, born 1989)
This article was renamed immediately several times before you closed the discussion. There was no consensus, no votes, and no comments yet. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why that was a procedural close and not a solid ruling. When I found it, the article was already at the requested title after over a week without any discussion. If you'd prefer another title, that close won't preclude a new RM. --BDD (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavic Neopaganism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic Neopaganism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on weather the PNA is a place or an organization
There's a discussion on weather the PNA is a place or an organization at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority, and at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority you seamed to express an opinion on that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! --BDD (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars VII
Well, you had to know this was coming, didn't you? Per the instructions at WP:DRV, I'd like to express my concerns to you first. I accept your closure as made in good faith, but I can't help but think it was more of a supervote than an objective measure of consensus from discussion. Of course, AfD isn't a headcount, but I did a quick check of all editors who expressed a clear opinion and found 86 in favor of keeping and 43 of something else (most often redirecting but also deletion or merging). That's a pretty strong ratio, especially considering the very high level of participation. This is a fairly extraordinary case of ignoring a majority opinion, even if doing so isn't wrong in and of itself. You referenced WP:CRYSTAL, but this is hardly a clear-cut policy case. There was reasonable disagreement as to how CRYSTAL applied to the article, and other sources such as WP:FFILM and WP:GNG constitute reasonable cases for keeping. Furthermore, "significant new information has come to light since a [redirection]" is being released fairly regularly. Finally, you seem to have openly ignored input from users who identified themselves as Star Wars fans, which seems problematic. How many editors who voted against keeping hate Star Wars? We don't know. Could you elaborate on why you think your closure was appropriate? Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi BDD.
 * I see in your comments above that you personally disagree with the weight I assigned the policy WP:NOT as compared to guidelines like FFILM and GNG.
 * You also, while noting that AFD is not a vote, then proceed to count heads as a "vote".
 * But setting that aside for a moment, I believe you misunderstood something in the close. The close wasn't predicated on whether someone may have self-identified as a star wars fan. But being a star wars fan (or not) is not a policy argument. So merely saying: Keep - It's Star Wars - is simply not going to have anywhere near the same weight as someone who makes a clear policy argument.
 * And by the way, I did note the possibility of future info in the close. Should such info come in which allows for a stand-alone article, per policy, then of course recreation should be possible should consensus deem that to be so.


 * I'm also wondering what "significant new info" you have right now which justifies a DRV.


 * So anyway, all that said, what procedural errors do you see in the closure which you feel DRV would be appropriate? - jc37 01:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, alright. I don't think the circumstances were such that such a strong majority position should have been discarded, but I'll leave it alone for now. It will be an article again soon enough. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pro-Life (politician)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanford Berman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-apartheid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links really fit exactly. I think it's probably ok. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in participating in this
Because you participated in Talk:Palestinian National Authority you might be interested in participating in this: Talk:Elections in the Palestinian_National Authority. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

SPA tagging
I've undone your in my humble but honest opinion clearcut bad-faith SPA tagging here. You could contact the user at their talk page to expand on their opinion since our discussions are not supposed to be polls, if that's your problem with Singalongschmee's comment.

But just tagging a fellow user's comment as "single purpose" for no apparent reason? That's way out of line, and you know it very well. And please spare me any rationalizations. It's the epitome of a personal attack, and you should not do it. That template really should be deleted because people like you keep malignantly abusing it. And no, that's not my account. I'm just pissed off by passive-aggressive tactics like bad-faith SPA-tagging. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at spa, including its first unanimous survival at TfD and its second unanimous survival. I sort of doubt you're interested in anything but attacking me, but just how did you find my tagging bad faith or malignantly abusive? I used the template exactly as it's meant to be. If you think I'm acting in bad faith or abusively, see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you want the template to be deleted, see Templates for deletion. In the mean time, you have absolutely no right to attack editors for using spa properly. I'm reverting your edit and have half a mind to tag you with it as well. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Haibun
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Haibun. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue
Dear user, your opinion on reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority is required. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi BDD, would you mind having a quick second look at Talk:Sticks + Stones (album), not necessarily the RM itself, but the section below, there was a recent undiscussed (good faith) move at Talk:Sticks + Stones which slightly complicates things and necessitates a secondary question of what to do with the redirect. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)