User talk:BDD/Archive 7

Please help
Dear BDD, could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the problem. The article "about a famous bodybuilding legend" is still that—it's just at a different title now. It's true that Robby Robinson is now a redirect to a disambiguation page, but that's not a statement on the subject's fame, notability, or importance. There are plenty of prominent individuals with disambiguating terms in their article titles, such as George Allen (U.S. politician), Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), or John Smith (explorer). Finally, I want to clarify that my closing the relevant requested move was an assessment of consensus among editors who participated in the discussion. It wasn't my personal opinion—a closing administrator or editor is not supposed to override consensus with his or her own position, a practice we refer to as a supervote. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear BDD, Thank you very much for reply. What you see now is the version already corrected back by some honest editors after the creation of Brocach, see the version of may 1st I tried to "defend" a previous, more neutral version as was made long before I came to the page, by many other editors and you among them, but they (Brocach, Andrewa) forbid me to edit anything, so I followed their demands and wrote my last proposals on "talk-page" - you can read them. I asked Andrewa if some corrections of Brocach's editing will be done, and he always answered he is working on it (although he has never made any single contribution to the article till now), so I was waiting and nothing happened, ohny Brocach could insert further discriminating misinterpretations of facts so that the wiki-page of a famous bodybuilder looked like "you are the last ..." page. After such a long writing for nothing (I think, Andrewa was loughing very much about me waiting) I sent request to some of the editors from the history of the page, and after this some honest editors came out to restore the page. So I am glad that most of my suggestions were considered by them, and now it does not look that awful. But Brocach still continues to try to deminish Robinson wherever he can: he has just added "self-published" to his memoirs, trying to add another humiliating feature once again (the most memoirs are self-published, and even self-written usually LOL, but nobody ever emphasizes it because it looks idiotic).

Another problem I personally have now - some of the editors came together with Brocach and probably are preparing something against me. For example, Brocach wrote private insult against me/my wiki-user on Robinson's talk-page:

"RRMW has not told us very much about himself, despite showing a very keen interest in who I am; unless someone tells me otherwise I will assume that he is a Lithuanian gentlemen associated with a body set up to oppose the IFBB, and that he forgot to mention that conflict of interest while editing."

(this has nothing to do with me in reality but I am still concerned about his bad intentions towards me), but some time later user [BarrelProof] deleted it irreversibly - see ATTEMPT TO COVER OR HIDE UNPROPER BEHAVIOUR to hide it. They probably want to attack me somewhen later or ban me. But I am new here. I am not experienced wikipedian, I work with scientifical literature, musch with sports / medicine / health. I know much about selebrities in sports and medicine, but I do not know all technical tricks here and I do not know how to protect myself and to whom to apply for help.

I do not know what is the reason for Brocach's behaviour, if he has serious private problems with Robinson, or with older trained healthy people, or even racial problems, judging by his misinterpretation of facts about Robinson and by his contributions to the article, and now also by his remarks about me. Is he allowed then to contribute to the article?

By the way, Brocach has also deleted from the links the article with inverview that Robinson gave regarding Schwarzenegger's misbehaviour towards Robinson's wife. A scandal story that ended in court, where I guess 10 women accused Schwarzenegger of sexual abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Well. I always forget to sign. So now you can check the latest comments by Brocach and

They have also deleted my contribution about the history of creation of Robinson's memoirs. Are the facts from memoirs or from Robinson's blog not allowed to be used for his biography on wikipedia?

Are the editors who permanently make insulting and humiliating comments on talk page and arrange materials the same way allowed to work on wikipedia article? Who can check the "neutrality" of the article, the same admins with negative attitude to Robinson? Should Robinson apply to shut down the article to avoid public insults, at least on his wikipedia talk-page? Is it the purpose of these people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, a reply to some of this can be found at User talk:In ictu oculi. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss these crossposted claims by RRWM at the talk page for Robby Robinson (bodybuilder). And yes, RRWM, there is a process for Robby Robinson - from whom RRWM claims to be independent - to "apply to shut down the article", he just needs to persuade the courts to overturn the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Brocach (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Special Agent
Hi, I think this article should be at Special Agent (United States). The article is completely US Centric, And a quick search brings up additional uses of the word. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to bring this to WP:RM, but in previous cases like that, editors have thought it better to leave such titles to encourage globalization of the articles. I've tagged it as needing such treatment. In the meantime, it's generally not good practice to have "Foo" redirect to "Foo (term)" due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American Godzilla
Hey, would you mind if they move the page "American Godzilla" back to "Zilla"? There is legal documentation of the name change, just in case. Official documentation showing GODZILLA 1998 Registered trademark has been cancelled Official documentation showing "GODZILLA 1998" logo to be cancelled.

While these two trademarks have been abandoned and cancelled, Zilla is still up and running. Official Documentation showing "ZILLA" is still active.

Thanks. 493Titanollante (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong feelings about the subject and probably won't participate in the second RM. I've added an RM tag to your new request to make it official. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's all I needed. Thanks. 493Titanollante (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yemen national football team
In that case you should have replaced with refimprove rather than remove the tag entirely. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But with all that unreferenced content pared out, it's very possible that the remaining statements could be supported by those links. refimprove isn't always redundant to no footnotes (i.e., a long article with two references and no footnotes), but I think in this case it would be. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be. But without direct references, who knows? GiantSnowman 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Coffee
You used the wrong tag when you closed the discussion, so it messed up the rest of the log. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! I'm so used to closing only RMs, I've used pob instead of tags like afd bottom and mfd bottom out of habit. Thanks for catching that. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving
Hi BDD, may I kindly ask why you have moved Timeline of the Turks (500–1300) to Timeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300) ? Note that there had been no consensus in the move discussion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my closing statement there, something really had to be done. The request had been relisted, and indeed had ran for almost four whole weeks (well beyond the standard one-week minimum). And after all that time, there was only your opinion and that of the requester. A no consensus vote would've been procedurally appropriate, but with the corresponding article similarly moved, moving the template as well seemed the wisest course of action. Per WP:AT, titles are supposed to be consistent with those of similar pages. Since another administrator had previously ruled for the move on those grounds, I knew this wasn't just my judgment. Remember that these discussions are not a vote, so a request can have equal numbers of editors supporting and closing and still be moved. While you're free to take this issue to move review if you continue to think my ruling was erroneous, I would encourage you instead to propose a multi-move of the template and article together. --BDD (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And why you did not move Unfinished Music, No. 1: Two Virgins, but chose to relist instead. Per closing instructions, there is no minimum participation, and if there is no response, the request should be closed as either moved or not moved, depending on if it fails any naming convention, and barring that, moved. "Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." I.E. no RM that has no response should ever be relisted. Apteva (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely disagree. I think people often forget that in the majority of cases, the requesting editor at an RM in effect gives an built-in support vote (unless otherwise specified). RM is a consensus-building process. A consensus of one is possible, at least on Wikipedia, but it seems to be better for all parties that consensus involve more than one person's opinion. Based on observations, multiple relistings are rarely helpful, but a single relist can be a nice nudge that essentially does no harm. WP:BOLD is a nice philosophy, but it doesn't preclude erring on the side of caution. Speaking of boldness, why not be part of the solution? As you've pointed out, moving that page would be within policy, so why not perform a NAC? I'm on Pacific time, so you don't need to get up very early to beat me. --BDD (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In checking for consensus, no one should be just counting votes, but it is always important to consider the proponent as having voted for the move. I added the necessary templates, but an admin will need to delete the target. WP:RMCI is very clear, no requests with no response are ever relisted. If the move is a bad move, though, someone will notice it and make a technical request to have it moved back. So for admins, it is always a safe action, both ways (move and balk, citing the naming convention the move would violate). Apteva (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this merits further discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand you moved the article just because a template had previously been moved. Is there a rule which states that the article names follow the template names ? I insist using the previous name because it was the name used in the first written documents of Turks. ( Khöshöö Tsaidam and Bayn Tsokto Inscriptions, see Orkhon inscriptions) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge there is no such rule. I am not a fan of moving templates – no one can see the name of the template, it is just for the convenience of editors, but we do get a fair number of move requests for templates after the article has been moved, so that the name of the template will match the name of the article. Apteva (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, Nedim. There is indeed no such "rule," although there are very few hard-set rules on Wikipedia. The move was, however, in line with WP:CRITERIA, which prescribes titles consistent with similar articles. It's true that templates aren't, strictly speaking, articles, but RM discussions have consistently favored template titles that match their corresponding articles. Practice is similar for category names, which can be speedily renamed to match their articles. I don't discount your appeal to early written sources, but since we follow WP:COMMONNAME, such sources can be outweighed over time. Again, I think the best course of action would be a new multi-move if you still desire it. Inconsistent titles really don't help anyone. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

GA on Brown vs EMA
Please drop me a line if when this gets to GA you need help. I had wrote most of the stuff when the SCOTUS arguments were there (someone else brough the district court parts in), so I'm familiar with the sources. It should be no problem for a GA passage as it is, though. --M ASEM (t) 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I rewrote one of the district court paragraphs, which was identified as the main obstacle at the GA review. As I noted in my comments there, I'm about to take a wikibreak, so I may perhaps need a hand if the reviewer finds additional issues to be addressed. There were a few minor issues that of course could be fixed, but those were more identified as obstacles to FA status. I agree with the reviewer that this is a potential future FA, and I am eager to help that along—the timeline just ended up being a bit inconvenient for me this time. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will definitely keep on eye out for any GA issues (I'll make a note there even) and can help on an FA push though I think a copyedit will be needed first. --M ASEM (t) 21:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, the Guild of Copy Editors is always there to help. And with a drive going on in May with bonuses for requested articles, there's a good chance of finding someone there to take on the task. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Contemporary art
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Contemporary art. 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) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

MAVEN (spacecraft)
You moved it back to "MAVEN" while there is still a requested move in Talk:MAVEN (spacecraft). I hope you can revert the move and not close the request. --George Ho (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. Rob Sinden shouldn't've put in a technical request for the subject of an RM. I'll let him know and leave a note at the request. For now, I think reverting the move yet again would be excessive, however, and a no consensus decision should default to the stable title. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I appreciate I shouldn't have made the request while the WP:RM was in place (which I didn't spot until after), the real issue here is that George made a technical request to move it away from a stable title (which was actually used as an example at WP:NATURAL), then started a move discussion to move it to somewhere else, without even having an opinion where. This also isn't the way to go about things.  If George had a problem with where it was, then he should have made the move discussion before making a technical request. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, no serious harm done if you didn't know there was an ongoing RM. I don't exactly fault George for being bold either. We'll let the RM run its course. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Help me please!
I read that a bot will fix multiple redirects, but that I should fix the most serious ones. What does "most serious" fall under?

Thanks, Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 20:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. You could pick the ones linked from templates (you can limit WhatLinksHere to template namespace) or redirects that seem particularly likely to be used. I usually just fix them all myself. It's not unusual for a page to only have a few redirects, so fixing them all can be just as fast as trying to figure out what the "most serious" ones are. Most of the time, you won't do any harm by skipping that step—the bot is fairly prompt, so there shouldn't be too many confused readers in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyuna
For some reason, you didn't delete the talk page Talk:Hyuna to make place for move. Talk:Kim Hyun-a is still where it was before. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm still getting used to moves with admin tools. --BDD (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association GA Review
Hello, BDD. Just letting you know, I have reviewed Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and after reading it over carefully, I've placed the article on hold. Check out the review page for more information, but I don't think you should have a problem getting it touched up. Let me know when you're ready for me to look at it again, and I will look to see that the issues have been resolved. Thanks, Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 13:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Idaho
Thanks for the invitation on my talk page. You'll be glad to know I contributed this pic, used in Hemingway:



Sca (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice! --BDD (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Model UNs
You may be interested in these AFDs:Articles for deletion/Kulmun Articles for deletion/Seomun.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iron Man 3
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iron Man 3. 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) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Question on sources
I am going to attempt to add cites to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correllian_Nativist_Tradition. In this case, is it okay to use works published by the founder to help cite the structure and such? Sorry to bother you. Cougaria kit (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but please read Primary sources so you know what is and is not appropriate referencing from a primary source like that. Short version: stick to the facts, like when it was founded, what it's beliefs are. Information like number of adherents or influence of the tradition are best left to secondary sources. However, almost any statement will be ok if properly sourced. So if the statement begins with "Correll claimed" and is properly cited, it shouldn't be a problem unless the claim is egregious (e.g., "Correll claimed Teddy Roosevelt as an adherent."). I'll be happy to check anything if you'd like. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. 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) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi
You took part in Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM. Please see suggestion for follow up at MOSKOS RfC?. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Lists of Bengali films move request
I want to inform you Talk:List_of_Bengali_films_of_2013 where you commented has been included in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics where editors from both the WikiProject's editors are participating now. Consider joining the discussion! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing split discussion
A long forgotten split at Talk:Islam_in_Israel_and_the_Palestinian_territories. Please help me closing it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. 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) 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Film Sack
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Film Sack. 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) 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Jack McAuliffe & others
Great job on creating the Jack McAuliffe page as well as work on other craft beer-related pages.--Chimino (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

hm, Deadmaus/5 re UJ3RK5
I didn't take part in the RM, not extensively, though I think I did comment concerning UJ3RK5 (pronounced "U-jerk"..."the 5 is silent" as was explained to me when a friend who knows them commented when he saw their EP I had just bought.....(good stuff).....other than band names, such special characters occur in some BC native placenames, e.g. Esla7an which is a major historical community of the Squamish people; the '7' is a glottal stop, though an old anglicization is "Eslahan" though that's not correct pronunciation-wise. Endonyms are a bit of a differen matter, I'm just concerned the UJ3RK5 will get "normalized" to UJERK or Ujerk, which would ocnstitute rebranding....Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reply on my talkpage, my watchlist is long enough as it is :-).Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

deadmau5 move discussion closure
Hi, I was wondering if you could maybe explain your rationale behind closing the deadmau5/Deadmaus RM in favour of a move? I know that you don't just count "votes", but I don't really think a consensus to move had emerged—there seemed to be a pretty equal balance. I particularly feel that the argument that I and a couple other users (filelakeshoe, Eleutherius) were putting forward (that the MOS shouldn't supersede WP:COMMONNAME) hasn't really been addressed by Wetdogmeat, as the instigator of the move, or you, as the closer of the discussion. Further, I think you might have been a bit hasty in closing, especially when discussion was ongoing. Wetdogmeat had responded to my comments, but you closed the discussion before I had to opportunity to respond to their comments. Thanks,  IgnorantArmies  06:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is a great guiding principle, but it seems to come into conflict with other standards more than you might expect. While it often comes down to particular cases, I've observed a general trend of MOS:TM outweighing COMMONNAME. A prominent example of this is Kesha, who is more commonly referred to as Ke$ha, but we use the former due to MOS:TM, which has been upheld via RM. While discussion had not gone stale, this particular RM had run for about two and a half weeks, well beyond the one-week listing period. There was still some back-and-forth, but I hope you'll forgive me if I say there was slim chance you or Wetdogmeat would change your minds as a result of that discussion. It wasn't an overwhelming consensus, but with a majority of arguments in favor, no egregious arguments outside of policy, and MOS:TM backing it up, that made the decision for me. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'm not interested enough in the article to argue the point further. Looks like we've already got one disgruntled fan, though :)  IgnorantArmies  07:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD. While I opposed your move in the move review, I have no doubt that you acted in good faith and made a difficult decision. And perhaps I'm somewhat biased because of my late arrival at the discussion and admittedly have focused more on the recent discussion. Nevertheless, I'd just like to request that you consider reverting your move and relisting the discussion to move it from "Deadmau5 to Deadmaus" given the information and subsequent discussion that you now have at your disposal. As you said, the discussion had dragged on and was a close one. If you read the subsequent discussions, I believe you will see a clear and convincing consensus supporting the reversion. As you my have noted, obstructions keep getting thrown in the way and bureaucracy seems to be preventing the right thing from getting done. (Just look at the titles and the urls of the references if you need more proof that there is a right answer for what the proper name is.) Thank you for reading this. Capscap (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your courtesy, but I think it would be more appropriate to petition Keith D to reopen the second RM, since there are no hard and fast rules about multiple RMs in a certain span of time, and since there's clearly still interest in the discussion. Wouldn't it look strange to have one RM open with a later one already closed? I continue to think my close was procedurally valid, but I wouldn't object to a new RM, or at least letting the second run its course (it was only a day into the standard week-long listing period). It's unfortunate that Andy Dingley didn't contact either me or Keith before starting the move review, per the instructions at WP:MRV. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I agree that it may look odd. I'm guessing that Andy just reacted very quickly to the close. I see that Keith D is now being asked to chime in. Thanks again. Capscap (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator?
Hey BDD, just checking to see if you planned to go out for GOCE coordinator for the second half of the year. Nominations are open for another ten days here. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. Not anymore. :) I was hoping for another non-contentious election, but it doesn't look like that will be the case. It's been a good experience, and I may step up another time, but for now, I'll hand off the—ahem, torch. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem. I know both you and Miniapolis have a lot more going on with mops in hands.  Thanks for helping out this year! —Torchiest talkedits 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

ILMUNC Page Deletion
Dear BDD,

I am writing to you as the Director-General of the Ivy League Model United Nations Conference (ILMUNC), the University of Pennsylvania's annual high school Model UN competition. I recently noticed that you had taken action in deleting our Wikipedia page, and having checked the deletion log, I am politely requesting that you restore it.

Our Wikipedia page is a source of information for a vast variety of people, from faculty advisors who are thinking about registering for next year's conference to Penn students who are considering joining our umbrella organization to students who are considering attending on their own. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind deleting it.

One of the comments I noted on the deletion log was the following:

''One of hundreds of Model UN conventions. No indication that this one is notable. Hosted by Ivy League schools, but that doesn't make it automatically notable, as notability is not inherited based on host of conference. Only 1 third party source, a reference from U Penn's student newspaper--the remaining sources are all WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)"

In addition to ILMUNC constituting one of the largest and most prestigious types of such conferences worldwide, I find it confusing that we are categorized as "one of hundreds" and yet none of those other hundreds have been deleted. Within the Model UN circuit, each conference has its own history and to say that it's not notable is an attack on the years of work that have been put in by each secretariat (planning committee). In addition, the lack of references stems from the fact that we are the primary source for all information on the conference because we host the conference. If that's a point of contention, I am willing to revamp our page with outside sources, of which there are plenty in the Model UN world.

From you, I would like an explanation on the deletion of this page that doesn't discredit the integrity of the conference that I have dedicated four years of my life to and doesn't insult the people I work with. If there has been a misunderstanding that I've cleared up, I'm glad to hear of it. If not, please let me know what can be changed about the article to have it meet Wiki standards.

Best, Stephanie Stevab (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephanie. I'm sorry we've hurt your feelings; presence or absence of a Wikipedia article on an organization isn't taken as a reflection of the integrity (or lack thereof) of that organization here, and I think this is a good policy to follow in general. Wikipedia's notability standards don't consider the integrity of an organization. If you haven't already read WP:AFTERDELETE, please do so. While I'd advise you to take a more polite tone with such communication, I will give you a very simple explanation for the deletion of the page: it was deleted by consensus through the normal WP:AFD process, with no one speaking in its favor in the required one-week listing period for deletion discussions. If you genuinely intend to improve the article to meet our requirements, I would be willing to "userfy" the article—to recreate it as a subpage of your userpage for you to work on. But please see WP:NOTWEBHOST. People using the article for information purposes might be better served by the organization's own web site, and the page's usefulness is not a factor that's considered in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD. Yes, I would make a concerted effort to redo the page with outside sources. We're one of very few championship conferences in the nation, with a 30-year history and consistent attendance of over 2500 students from dozens of nations, and I know that there are enough such citations from sources other than ourselves. I understand that Wikipedia is not a web host, but our page also contained historical information that we don't include on our website, and was linked to on various Model United Nations-related pages. While admittedly, the previous version of the page wasn't well kept, I assure you that I can revise it to meet "neutral point of view", "verifiability" and "no original research".

Best, Stephanie Stevab (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Stephanie, I've restored the article at User:Stevab/ILMUNC, making it a userspace draft. Take a look at that page and WP:SYMUD for a primer on what this means. This is a short-term solution, though to be fair, "short-term" is a relative term here. Abandon it for too long and someone could take it to Miscellany for deletion as a WP:STALEDRAFT. While you're welcome to use this page as an informational resource for people interested in ILMUNC, I'd still suggest you move any important information to the organization's official website. If you need any help bringing this up to standards, you're free to contact me, or you can just put on your own talk page, and someone will be along to help. Good luck. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

reply on my talkpage
re my query. Not sure you've "watched" my page since posting.Skookum1 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jack McAuliffe (brewer)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Deadmaus
An editor has asked for a Move review of Deadmaus. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Empire State Building
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Empire State Building. 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) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Voting at Talk:S. D. Burman
Similar to Redtigerxyz, me too surprized about support and found it a good. As per my observations and edit history I also found that Redtigerxyz is unnecessarily involved in argument. Bheemsinh (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

can I humbly expect, removal of novote tag, as it may affect the purpose for which I started the discussion. Bheemsinh (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I want to assume the best of everyone here, and I'll remove the novote tag as a show of good faith. But if I or another uninvolved editor tags an account with spa, please respect that decision and leave it to the editor in question to speak up in his or her defense. If you have concerns with such tags being misused, feel free to contact me or an uninvolved admin to sort out the issue. Potential single-purpose accounts are important factors for a closing administrator to consider. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bheemsinh (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC receiver design
First of all let me say thanks for moving the article for us. Second can I ask you or this is inappropriate and where would I go to ask: to set up an archive for the article talk page. Mostly it is about renaming and lede and subject matter with multiple edits attempting to change the subject matter of the article...all water under the bridge and a clean page would be very good at this point. Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the move. The talk page is probably long enough for archiving now. I've attempted to set up automatic archiving from a bot, but I've actually never done that before, so we'll have to wait and see if it works. If the page isn't archived by this time tomorrow, I did something wrong. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Better you than me. I elaborated a bit on that after K7L suggested I do it. :) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. 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) 22:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)