User talk:BDD/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Can you please either take full protection off or revert to a version not by a indef-blocked sockmaster? I suggest this one. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a difference, besides the sentence about him being in Kappa Alpha Psi, which doesn't seem particularly problematic. I'll downgrade to semi-protection to allow editors to improve the article during AfD if desired, but I'm pinging Black Kite, who protected the article. Black Kite is surely more familiar with the situation than I am, so if he or she wishes to take it back to full protection, I won't object. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. The tags were also different and not quite applicable. --NeilN talk to me 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that was a lovely way to close it. Made me smile, anyway. Thanks, you made my day (not sarcastic). Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
About some redirects recreated on a discussion you closed
Hey BDD, just wanted to give you a heads-up that it seems all of the redirects nominated at a discussion you closed, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 6#Category:Songs written by Rolf Haris, Category:Rolf Haris songs, have been recreated. I was thinking of nominating these redirects for speedy deletion criterion G4, but based on your closing statement, I'm not sure if another administrator would accept these nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hard to say. They're soft redirects now instead of hard, so not exactly G4 material. The CfD crowd has traditionally been conservative about keeping category redirects. I've seen some more recent decisions where they seemed willing to accept them, though people who followed my notifications on that discussion definitely came down on the delete side. G4 if you'd like, but I think further discussion should take place at CfD either way. --BDD (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like JamesBWatson proactively resolved this themselves. Not sure if anyone tagged those redirects, but either way, they've been re-deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- This looked to me like a straightforward G4 deletion, but from what you and Steel1943 say, it is perhaps not quite so clear-cut. To me, the distinction between soft and hard directs doesn't seem to make enough difference to invalidate G4, but if consensus is that it does, then I won't quarrel. For what it's worth my own tendency is to leave redirects unless they are grossly inappropriate, and I would not have !voted for deletion had I taken part in the discussion, but in taking admin actions I try to follow consensus, even when my own preference is against consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've never seen consensus on the question either way, and I don't do much speedy deletion work, so take my position with a grain of salt. --BDD (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- This looked to me like a straightforward G4 deletion, but from what you and Steel1943 say, it is perhaps not quite so clear-cut. To me, the distinction between soft and hard directs doesn't seem to make enough difference to invalidate G4, but if consensus is that it does, then I won't quarrel. For what it's worth my own tendency is to leave redirects unless they are grossly inappropriate, and I would not have !voted for deletion had I taken part in the discussion, but in taking admin actions I try to follow consensus, even when my own preference is against consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like JamesBWatson proactively resolved this themselves. Not sure if anyone tagged those redirects, but either way, they've been re-deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please help with a move
Hi, BDD - I am in the process of moving the essay into main space but while I was looking up the procedure for moving the TP, Jytdog had created one. Now I can't do the move. Can you please help me? Thank you in advance. Atsme☎️📧 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS - would it be ok if I just copied and pasted it over to the new TP? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 May 2015
- No, Atsme, please don't copy and paste! Bad bad bad. Just let me know which page you want to move and where you want to move it and I'll help you out. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok - I reverted it. The page Jytdog already created is here: Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks. What I want moved over there is here: User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks I tried it but it wouldn't let me because Jytdog already created the page before I finished doing all the moving. Atsme☎️📧 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, just the talk page? It looks like you made Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks by copying and pasting too. Mind if I just move User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks over Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, talk pages included? --BDD (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I used the moved page tool on my dashboard to move the main essay - thought the TP would move with it, but it didn't. Please do whatever you need to do - I've been at this for 4 hours trying to figure it out and have gotten nowhere.
Atsme☎️📧 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ta-da! I think I figured out a neat solution. The page is live at Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. Its talk page is what Jytdog created earlier today, but it also has an archive of previous discussion that moved over from your sandbox page. User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks and its talk page are redirects to the Wikipedia-space page, though if you'd like, I can delete them. How's that look? --BDD (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Nearly perfect!! Thank you. Just one thing, though. I wanted the Talk Page to go with it, not just a link, because the prelim consensus is important and based on the very first comments on the new TP, it really needs to be included. I'm also trying to figure out how to get all the history in the history box so that it doesn't show up as separate links beneath the main header, which is what took me so long to get a TP going. Could I manually move that one section (prelim consensus) with a box? Atsme☎️📧 17:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page- Hm. Well, I didn't want to just nuke Jytdog's comments from earlier today, and the talk page pre-move had already gotten well beyond the 75K standard for when it's time to archive a talk page. Talk pages are archived all the time; is this so bad? You could certainly start a new section drawing attention to the archive and your thoughts on the previous discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ta-da! I think I figured out a neat solution. The page is live at Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. Its talk page is what Jytdog created earlier today, but it also has an archive of previous discussion that moved over from your sandbox page. User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks and its talk page are redirects to the Wikipedia-space page, though if you'd like, I can delete them. How's that look? --BDD (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I used the moved page tool on my dashboard to move the main essay - thought the TP would move with it, but it didn't. Please do whatever you need to do - I've been at this for 4 hours trying to figure it out and have gotten nowhere.
- Ok, just the talk page? It looks like you made Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks by copying and pasting too. Mind if I just move User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks over Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, talk pages included? --BDD (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok - I reverted it. The page Jytdog already created is here: Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks. What I want moved over there is here: User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks I tried it but it wouldn't let me because Jytdog already created the page before I finished doing all the moving. Atsme☎️📧 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, Atsme, please don't copy and paste! Bad bad bad. Just let me know which page you want to move and where you want to move it and I'll help you out. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, good plan. I'll just link to it, but I wasn't sure how long the connection to the sandbox was allowed to remain. Thank you so much for your help. Atsme☎️📧 — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 13 May 2015
- Oh, it started out in your sandbox, and the old title is now an {{R from move}}, so that's fine. Take it from me as a regular RfD admin—as long as you want the old names redirecting, they will. If you ever want them not to, they can easily be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- you can feel free to nuke my comments if it makes the move more smooth. i appreciate the care. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like it's all sorted out, but thanks for your flexibility. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Your efforts are greatly appreciated. If it was up to me, you just got a raise 💰. Atsme☎️📧 18:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
Obligatory notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Atsme☎️📧 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The flood gates are now open
[1] a speedy delete was just initiated by who identifies his former user names here:[2]. Under normal circumstances, it would seem to me this beehive activity would be raising all kinds of red flags on WP. If it doesn't, then I now have a better understanding of why we're losing editors faster than we can recruit them. The future looks dim. Atsme☎️📧 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I do think the speedy deletion was a mistake, and I've left a message on the deleting admin's talk page to that effect. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain to me why this [3] should not be considered harassment? The user who nominated the essay for deletion actually contributed to it. I don't see how you can't see the tag-team harassment here with this group of editors. If you can't do something about it, please advise me what I should do next because it has become so disruptive, at least 5 editors are unable to do any productive work because of the harassment. Atsme☎️📧01:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call the MfD nomination harassment. Ca2james, of course, has been one of the editors most opposed to this essay. You've been watching this more closely than I have, but I'm not concerned that he edited the essay either. Perhaps he tried to steer it in what he saw as an acceptable course and failed to achieve his goals. Not so different than what you've gone through. Keep assuming good faith here.
- You must have known this would come up at MfD again. As it stands right now, the essay is likely to survive. Either way, I'm going to heavily counsel both sides to walk away when this is over. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain to me why this [3] should not be considered harassment? The user who nominated the essay for deletion actually contributed to it. I don't see how you can't see the tag-team harassment here with this group of editors. If you can't do something about it, please advise me what I should do next because it has become so disruptive, at least 5 editors are unable to do any productive work because of the harassment. Atsme☎️📧01:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Where was there even a proper argument that "these are causing harm"? They previously worked. If editors are ignorant of that then they should listen to editors who are not ignorant of that. This close has worsened the encyclopedia. I'd appreciate a longer response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- They were wreaking havoc on formatting anywhere they were used. If it's enough to get them on the title blacklist, it's certainly enough to get them deleted. There's nothing wrong with your approach to the issue, except that you're putting the cart before the horse. Powers greater than us have determined these sorts of titles shouldn't exist—if you can get them to change their minds, fine. I had no input in that decision. --BDD (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis
Hello- I'm Shallowharold and I oversee the page for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. I was wondering if there was a way for the page to be protected? The reason why I'm asking is because a couple of vandals insist on putting in a false claim about their affiliation with Death Row Records- a label they had nothing to do with. I tried warning them but they are still persisting with putting up this bit of false information. Thank you. Shallowharold (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Done In the future, WP:RPP will probably result in better service, but I do think short-term protection for a content dispute is called for here. This may be fruitless since the two IPs involved look like SPAs, but you might want to try to engage with them to make sure this isn't the result of good-faith confusion. --BDD (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Help again, please
[4] - I tried to do this on my own because I realize you have more important things to tend, but it appears I've made a mess of things trying to be helpful. The good news is that I actually am learning from my mistakes so it's not all bad. I changed the template from RfD to Speedy delete because the redirect is not valid. I archived all my sandbox draft TPs and don't need redirects to deleted essay pages. Thank you for your patience. --Atsme☎️📧 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Reykholt
Wow, I can't believe we're crossing paths even on this. I moved and forked the page two years ago, shortly after visiting Reykholt, Southern Iceland myself, because I can't see why either of the two villages should be the primary topic over the other. One was home of Snorri Sturluson but is unimportant in modern times (village of 60 people); the other is a major pit stop on the Golden Circle though its population is only slightly larger (100). Hence I think disambiguation markers are necessary, and Reykholt should be turned into a disambiguation page. Deryck C. 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No objections from me. Inasmuch as Reykholt was already redirecting to Reykholt, Western Iceland, it was already established as the primary topic. --BDD (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Moved and converted to dab. Cheers. Deryck C. 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following needs your attention...
I tried to pretend it didn't bother me, BDD, but he didn't stop there. There is no excuse for inclusion of such a comment in an MfD except as a threat or scare tactic. I am also pinging SlimVirgin who is also aware of the origins of this essay. I can't believe the behavior. Stop and think about it. How many such essay incidents have you seen that even compare to what's going on now? I bent over backwards to be accommodating and tried my best to please as many of the essay's critics as humanly possible. I do not deserve this kind of treatment - no one does - and I feel that part of this is due to the gender gap. Andy's comment has absolutely no relevance to WP content, the WP:Duck test, sock puppetry, tag-teams, or the essay overall. His statement about gang rape and Necrophilia wherein he further stated "or at least showing an inordinate interest a clearly-dead female - floating inverted!", deserves your immediate attention. [6] Atsme📞📧 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it's because a friend of mine at RfD regularly goes off on tangent, but I really don't see that comment as especially offensive. It's an observation about the behavior of actual ducks. Off topic, sure, but hardly an attack or otherwise worth attention at ANI. I believe I advised you before that the duck metaphor could be problematic because it has a different, established usage. I didn't expect that anyone would start discussing actual duck behavior. Anyway, it looks like you finally have an essay affirmed by consensus—don't be a sore winner. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Well, I took it as being extremely offensive because it was not only off-topic, it was rather morbid to bring necrophilia into a discussion about advocacy, especially considering such behavior actually indicates homosexuality among drakes not so much drakes and dead females. [7] However if you condone such behavior as not being offensive, I will honor the precedent you are setting. Oh, and it has nothing to do with being a sore winner. I wish you hadn't said that to me. Atsme📞📧 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I simply think ignoring such comments is your best course of action at this point. Be the bigger person. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Now that reads tons better. I will follow your advice and be the bigger person. If I don't get away from this computer more often and exercise, I will definitely be the bigger person in places I don't want to be.
--Atsme📞📧 20:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Now that reads tons better. I will follow your advice and be the bigger person. If I don't get away from this computer more often and exercise, I will definitely be the bigger person in places I don't want to be.
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I simply think ignoring such comments is your best course of action at this point. Be the bigger person. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Well, I took it as being extremely offensive because it was not only off-topic, it was rather morbid to bring necrophilia into a discussion about advocacy, especially considering such behavior actually indicates homosexuality among drakes not so much drakes and dead females. [7] However if you condone such behavior as not being offensive, I will honor the precedent you are setting. Oh, and it has nothing to do with being a sore winner. I wish you hadn't said that to me. Atsme📞📧 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've followed your advice, tried my best to be patient, but the MfD is devolving and spiraling into off-topic spins based on speculation and just plain BS. One of the editors requested a close on AN and nothing is happening. The intent of MfD has been hijacked - the same opposers are taking the discussion off topic with BS speculation. Can you please help? --Atsme📞📧 12:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you asking me to close? My first thought was that I should leave it to someone else, since I closed the first one. If it were a slam-dunk, no-brainer of an outcome, I might've just done it anyway. Right now, the consensus to keep looks pretty solid, but I'd prefer to leave it to another admin to make the call. Generally, I don't think just closing a discussion makes an admin WP:INVOLVED (indeed, the page explicitly says this), but I did get overturned at DRV once on those grounds. This should be a clean close. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- A request to close was made at AN but nothing has happened. As I mentioned above, the discussion has devolved into petty speculation. Since you deleted the first essay, you have a bit more insight regarding the issues raised then and now, so it makes sense that you should close. Thanks in advance. --Atsme📞📧 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) While BDD is welcome to !vote, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to close it. Someone will get to it eventually and if the comments are truly petty, the closing admin will take that into account when determining consensus. Leaving it open isn't so bad - uninvolved editors are !voting and the more input, the better. Ca2james (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The same editors who opposed it before are not uninvolved and that's all we're seeing now. Speculation, PAs and off-topic comments are not substantive arguments. In fact, the off-topic comments and PAs need to be hatted. --Atsme📞📧 09:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- INVOLVED is just about admins and those acting in such a capacity (e.g., non-admin closers). Editors who participated in a previous discussion can certainly do so in a newer one. An admin who has only closed one discussion should be able to close another, though as I noted above, that has not always been upheld. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The same editors who opposed it before are not uninvolved and that's all we're seeing now. Speculation, PAs and off-topic comments are not substantive arguments. In fact, the off-topic comments and PAs need to be hatted. --Atsme📞📧 09:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) While BDD is welcome to !vote, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to close it. Someone will get to it eventually and if the comments are truly petty, the closing admin will take that into account when determining consensus. Leaving it open isn't so bad - uninvolved editors are !voting and the more input, the better. Ca2james (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- A request to close was made at AN but nothing has happened. As I mentioned above, the discussion has devolved into petty speculation. Since you deleted the first essay, you have a bit more insight regarding the issues raised then and now, so it makes sense that you should close. Thanks in advance. --Atsme📞📧 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Dominicans
Hey BDD! How's it going?
I wanted to ask you a favor, which you can totally ignore, about Talk:Dominican_people_(Dominican_Republic). I am 99% confident that that page needs to end up at Dominicans as primary topic and as per Belizeans, etc. But I can't see that move request to a different disambiguated title actually reaching a consensus. I see that you just relisted it; would you consider closing it so that I could make a different one to the conciser and clear primary topic?
You don't have to, it's just I have no idea when that move request will eventually get closed, and it could be several weeks yet. I'd been waiting it out, and was very disappointed (though I totally understand the reasoning!) to see it relisted. :( Thanks, amigo! Red Slash 21:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oops. I would've, if I had gotten to this in time. But now it looks like some other comments have come in, so it's probably not a good idea. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Melbourne City Wrestling
I thought I should put this here rather than on the RfD because I don't want to send it off on a tangent again as happened previously. The re-direct was put in place to be converted to an article by a user who is using his IP's as socks (why I don't know). You're right about trying to prevent creation as a general point, but keep in this case will do precisely the opposite. At least until Pidzz (the user concerned) stops with the IP sock nonsense. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's closed now, but I don't think RfD was ever a very good outlet for this. To really stop this sort of behavior, you'd need to salt the titles, and that just doesn't seem to be called for. If it's one editor misbehaving with sockpuppets, WP:SPI is the place to go. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not with IP's it's not because check user isn't allowed with those. Just pointing that out. I agree about salting the titles. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've never quite understood that restriction with CheckUser. It seems to severely limit its usefulness. That said, only CheckUser has that restriction, not SPI altogether. If it's obvious enough, you may see results per WP:DUCK. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not with IP's it's not because check user isn't allowed with those. Just pointing that out. I agree about salting the titles. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Advice, please
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks has been closed by a non-admin (that Atsme has called her mentor) based on numbers alone. I've asked the editor to reverse the close but they've refused. Given that Atsme also asked you to close it and her relationship with the closer, I have concerns about canvassing also, although there's nothing on-wiki to show that this has occurred. Is it worth challenging the close, and if so, is it better to do this at WP:DRV, WP:AN, or WP:ANI? Thanks for your help. Ca2james (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you making an unwarranted accusation, Ca2James? I have worked with lots of different editors over the years - many of whom I have sought advice including different admins - some of whom I have nicknames for and collaborate with on various projects. What would you think if I accused you the way you're accusing me because of your interactions with other editors? Your allegations are unwarranted. --Atsme📞📧 15:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) *sigh* Alright, here's the thing. At a glance, I think you're right: this was the wrong closer. It's also a really poor closing statement. That said, it's still the right call. I recommend accepting this outcome, but that's not what you asked. First step is to discuss it with the closer, which I see you've done. Next step is definitely DRV—don't jump ahead to AN. And really, probably don't go there at all. I believe I mentioned to Atsme above that it has been my intention since the initiation of the second MfD to counsel whichever side "loses" to talk away. Of course, there are no winners or losers, but, you know. (There are.) --BDD (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, if I hurt anyone. I admit it was a bad closing comment and so, shall I mend it? Thanks..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Herald, I'm actually much more likely than most to roll my eyes when someone trots out WP:NOTAVOTE; this typically assumes neat discussions where policy is completely on one side of the issue. More often, both sides are making policy-based arguments, so I think closers should start with the assumption that the numerical majority will prevail (assuming it's not just, like, a 6-5 split). But specifically saying this in your close is just asking for trouble. You can say nothing and let the results speak for itself, or you can summarize the discussion and highlight which arguments won the day. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, BDD. I agree that consensus was against deletion, which is why I wasn't sure that it was worth formally challenging the close. I appreciate your advice and I won't challenge this close anywhere.
- Atsme, please read my previous statement carefully: I said that I had concerns about canvassing but I made no accusations. My concerns were not unwarranted, given the circumstances: you expressed that you wanted it closed, you didn't like what was being said there, delete !votes from uninvolved editors were trickling in making it less of a SNOW keep than previously, you'd already asked one admin to close it, and the closer is your mentor. Taken together, to me it looked like something fishy might have gone on but I also recognize both that your mentor might have voluntarily stepped in and that I could be reading a conspiracy in where there is none, which is why I expressed only concerns and not accusations. It would be helpful if, in the future, you asked for clarification before reacting to something.
- The Herald, the issue is not that anyone is hurt by your close but that, given your relationship with Atsme, you were the wrong person to close it. Thank you for amending your close statement. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Herald, I'm actually much more likely than most to roll my eyes when someone trots out WP:NOTAVOTE; this typically assumes neat discussions where policy is completely on one side of the issue. More often, both sides are making policy-based arguments, so I think closers should start with the assumption that the numerical majority will prevail (assuming it's not just, like, a 6-5 split). But specifically saying this in your close is just asking for trouble. You can say nothing and let the results speak for itself, or you can summarize the discussion and highlight which arguments won the day. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, if I hurt anyone. I admit it was a bad closing comment and so, shall I mend it? Thanks..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I am neither in nor do I have "a relationship" with The Herald unless there is a new definition for collaboration and/or editors providing help to others. I highly recommend the essay WP:NAC and a refresher course in what "uninvolved" actually means and how it applies. I agree with BDD's assessment of The Herald's close which was not perfect initially but I recently closed an ANI discussion that wasn't perfect either and like The Herald, I was coached by a thoughtful admin who took the time to explain and teach rather than reprimand over a mistake. Such interaction does not mean those same editors may never interact again or that they have a "relationship." I found the concerns expressed by Ca2James to be not only unwarranted but somewhat disconcerting, although not to the degree of ducks being gang raped or becoming necrophiliacs. His research into my edit history aroused my curiosity so I did some checking of my own. What I discovered was that Ca2James has 1472 total edits since his arrival as an editor in February 2014. A substantial number of those edits are directly related to the 3 essays I created and their TPs. Hmmmm. I also discovered that my user space hasn't been the only one targeted by Ca2james. Lo and behold: [8], [9], [10], and [11] to name a few. I suppose one could dig a little deeper to find the connection if needed. He has also spent a great deal of time on the noticeboards which is quite unusual for a new editor. Newbies typically don't start off giving advice at the Teahouse [12] within 2 weeks as a new editor. I also found the following in his user space which btw I was warned against doing in the not too distant past. [13]. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just expressing my concerns. --Atsme📞📧 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, friends. Let's leave this be. I, for one, am happy to put this behind us. There were some stressful moments, but overall, the system really worked. You know, today is my birthday. And peaceful resolution is the only gift I need. I suggest dropping this altogether, but if you must continue, please do it elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Happy birthday, BDD! May this next year be filled with happiness, good fortune, and good health. Ca2james (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep having them!!
|
Happy Birthday!! |
| Couldn't find enough candles but it's the thought that counts. Atsme📞📧 19:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Merging question
Hi, BDD - if I start working on an article or essay in my sandbox - let's say it's just a section that will be added to an existing article - and I've invited other editors to join me in collaboration will the edit history also be moved from the sandbox to the existing article? Is that what a merge does, or will adding that section require a copy/paste that loses the edit history of the collaborators? Thx in advance....--Atsme📞📧 19:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, a merge would do that. But see WP:CWW for specifics. You would probably need to keep the draft page, since that's where the attribution history would be. So I wouldn't recommend using your main sandbox for that purpose. You could also use a subpage of the page in question. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 
Atsme📞📧 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BDD. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is in September 2013 as "delete". After new sources have surfaced, I have taken the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is for community review.
Because of Archive.is's controversial history on Wikipedia, it is probably better to have the community review the sources rather than a single admin. And because I am not challenging your nearly two-year-old close (which I consider correct), I did not contact you before taking this to DRV. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Template move closure
Not the first time you've closed one of my RMs as "no consensus" in the face of illogical opposition - the difference being that this one's moved-protected, so we're now stuck with a misleading title. Of course, I could always make a request at WP:RM/TR and be accused of forumshopping. Alakzi (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Again, template names rarely matter very much. In general, I advise you to be bold and move them yourself (unless the issue has been controversial in the past). I don't object to your doing so with the previous example, though it looks worse now than if you had just moved it without asking in the first place. If you ask, you have to be prepared to hear something besides "yes". I have very little patience for the implication that I'm somehow to blame for your failure to achieve consensus in very sparsely attended discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the implication; the implication is that you did not assess consensus correctly. I opened an RM to hear if there were any better alternatives, and not for the move to be dismissed on the basis of a false assumption. Also, whoever said that template names rarely matter? The name of a template is important with regard to its discoverability and usability. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Template names don't matter much because they function just as easily through redirects, and their names are not reader-facing. This is often remarked upon in RMs for templates; it's not an original observation of mine. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the implication; the implication is that you did not assess consensus correctly. I opened an RM to hear if there were any better alternatives, and not for the move to be dismissed on the basis of a false assumption. Also, whoever said that template names rarely matter? The name of a template is important with regard to its discoverability and usability. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Getting mad about WP:MAD
Hey BDD: At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Qantas_Flight_Numbers, there has been some disagreement over WP:MAD. Since I don't think there is consensus over the matter, I offered a compromise proposal based on WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history. I'd like to offer an example of what I'm talking about, and would like to use Pop culture references in Family Guy as that example. Could you temporarily undelete it so that I can record the edit history at Talk:Family Guy? I'll let you know when I'm done with it. Tavix | Talk 20:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done Tavix, sorry for not seeing to this sooner. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- False alarm. I just went through the history of Family Guy and Pop culture references in Family Guy and I'm now about as positive as I can be that a merge did not take place. It was just redirected there. You can delete it again... Thanks for your help. Tavix | Talk 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Kieran Walllace
The procedural close, I think was premature, but I shall abide by it. But I think in your closing comment you may have hit the nail on the thumb rather. The R as it stands does redirect to Denis O'Brien and at least should be {{R to section}} to Denis O'Brien#RTÉ Injunction. Obviously I don't want to add to RfD on this, since you closed it: I did earlier today since I {{nac}}ked one then realised that was a bit premature so I fixed up all the incoming links, but that is kinda OK cos it was my own nom and my own fault, that I corrected. How do you suggest we proceed? WP:RM is not too good, I think best to leave the two authors to deal with it between themselves? Si Trew (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it was necessary. The contents of Kieran Wallace had been moved in a copy-and-paste move to Kieran Wallace (footballer), which is hugely problematic and messy. Try refreshing—there's no Kieran Wallace redirect right now. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Worst Headphones Ever at RfD
Why are you closing this so soon? I don't understand. The general guideline is seven days. Three times now I have had (edit conflict) with you when trying to add a comment. I know you are in good faith, and I respect you, but I genuinely do not understand why you are so swiftly closing it. Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's already been deleted before—the same guy trying to create the same attack page. It fits speedy deletion criteria, which we have for a reason, as well as WP:SNOW. You're always welcome to discuss closes with me, but it's really never appropriate to unilaterally undo someone else's close, especially without an explanation. I had assumed you accidentally reverted me. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
GOCE June 2015 newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
  May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Daniela Montoya
Per your note on the Avianca article, I wanted to let you know that Daniela Montoya is an non-notable survivor of the crash. She was probably redirected there because she's featured briefly on the Air Crash Investigations episode about the flight. She is not mentioned in the article and is no different from any other survivor. If no other notable person has that name, the FIFA player article should probably be moved to assume it. -- Veggies (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed! See discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Daniela Montoya. I'd love to see a WP:SNOW close there. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library
Did you know that Wikipedia has its own library? The Wikipedia Library is seeking volunteers from those in galleries, libraries, archives and museums.
- Become an account coordinator to distribute research accounts to editors
- Get involved in some of our special projects:
- Expand our Resources page with free resources for editors in all subject areas
- Help develop a template for citing archival collections
- Write guides to accessing and using library resources
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Person data
You removed {{persondata}} before all the data was migrated to Wikidata. I was told not to. SLBedit (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I was under the impression that that had already happened. Do you know when it's supposed to finish? --BDD (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't know you had replied, please use {{ping}} next time.
- I think it will be finished when we transfer all the (missing) data manually. I have started removing persondata template in articles that have all the data migrated (does not include fullname), for example, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Wayne Rooney. SLBedit (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- (ping) How can I tell when persondata has been migrated? I can look at a Wikidata item, but how do I tell if information is native there or if it's just calling persondata from Wikipedia? Or did it ever do that? --BDD (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I look at Wikidata and compare with information on Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is correct data. {{persondata}} was "for automatic data gathering and cataloging". Bots may still use it. SLBedit (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- (ping) Does that mean if info is on Wikidata, it can safely be removed from persondata? --BDD (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes because persondata is officially deprecated. SLBedit (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I look at Wikidata and compare with information on Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is correct data. {{persondata}} was "for automatic data gathering and cataloging". Bots may still use it. SLBedit (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- (ping) How can I tell when persondata has been migrated? I can look at a Wikidata item, but how do I tell if information is native there or if it's just calling persondata from Wikipedia? Or did it ever do that? --BDD (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ligne de Sceaux may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- (other CMP lines used third-rail electrification), until 1977, when it was incorporated into the[RER as the southern part of its new line B.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Barbara Hines (immigration attorney)
I have addressed the issue you flagged with Barbara Hines (immigration attorney). Do I remove the issue tag or do I wait for you to review and remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcoats (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- At a glance, Mbcoats, I think you've improved the article and can remove the tags. I'm not the one who actually flagged them, though—I just used {{multiple issues}} to group the tags that had already been placed there. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you consider relisting Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 16#Albert Pooholes? There's still a couple of minor issues that were still being discussed as of last night and I would like for a couple more people to chime in because I still haven't decided where I stand on it. It's not a big deal either way (so don't expect a WP:DRV if you disagree! 
) Thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reject the idea out of hand, but what else is really going to be said? If I misunderstood and you want it to be deleted, maybe there isn't really consensus right now, but I thought the basic question of phonetic spelling vs. possible attack—which was absolutely worth asking—had been settled. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't misunderstand me, I'm still neutral on it—as is probably most other people who viewed this discussion. I guess I'm just optimistic that a relist will get a few more opinions. Your interpretation is correct in that there is rough consensus to keep it and the "keep" points that have been made have been strong. On the other hand, there really has only been one !vote that isn't currently struck, so it's been a lot of neutral discussion. Since there hasn't been anybody seriously advancing a delete position, I guess that's another way to look at a keep consensus. Like I said, it's not a big deal either way, I'm just "thinking aloud" so to speak. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done I'm skeptical this will do much, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Only time will tell... -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't misunderstand me, I'm still neutral on it—as is probably most other people who viewed this discussion. I guess I'm just optimistic that a relist will get a few more opinions. Your interpretation is correct in that there is rough consensus to keep it and the "keep" points that have been made have been strong. On the other hand, there really has only been one !vote that isn't currently struck, so it's been a lot of neutral discussion. Since there hasn't been anybody seriously advancing a delete position, I guess that's another way to look at a keep consensus. Like I said, it's not a big deal either way, I'm just "thinking aloud" so to speak. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jersey City Fire Department
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jersey City Fire Department. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Just so you'll know....
I hope you will take action or at least offer a warning to Andy the Grump for the following revert in which the edit summary was a PA against me... [14] There was nothing in my addition that warrants the attack he made. He is also exhibiting WP:OWN on the essay I created. Something has to be done, BDD. This is over the edge. Atsme📞📧 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- The edit was a transparent personal attack on what is almost certainly Wikipedia's most respected project - made after Atsme failed to get a topic ban rescinded by claiming that anyone and everyone was 'biased' except her. The use of an essay as a platform for airing personal grudges was entirely inappropriate, and I reverted it accordingly. If she wishes to raise the matter at ANI that is fine by me - I think it is high time the community as a whole took a look at her battleground behaviour, double standards, and refusal to accept any consensus that doesn't accord with her personal viewpoints. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Andy the Grump is harassing/hounding/stalking me. The edit I made to the essay I created states the following (underlined is the addition, my bold for emphasis): Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance either for or against something. Learning to recognize advocacy ducks is not an easy task because they may nest in a broad range of topics and articles, and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Wikipedia. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion, CAM, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. They almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is the primary catalyst for engaging in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; their goal being to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. Andy's BS accusations against me are false and unwarranted. The lady doth protest too much. He needs to read the essays on BIAS. His hounding and harassment needs to stop as it is extremely disruptive. He has been following me everywhere purposely to denigrate me and cast aspersions. He has not demonstrated even one edit of GF where it involves our interactions. Atsme📞📧 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can I ask why you are continuing to argue you case here - where nobody is responding - rather than at WP:ANI, as you have stated you intend to do? Clearly BDD isn't going to prejudge the community response - or indeed respond at all to allegations made with no evidence whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just for the record, see this edit [15] for the background to Atsme's soapboxing - an unequivocal statement of intent to edit the essay as a response to her not getting her way on the Kombucha article, due to the involvement of Wikiproject:Medicine contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for including that diff, Andy. I actually forgot about it. I probably should have added "malleable" to the reference of WP:MEDRS but I did not. Why? Because I believe it's hogwash and that MEDRS should be followed with strict adherence - at least that is what was tattooed on my posterior during the 3 attempts to get this essay removed. Read the post before you go launching PAs against me and casting aspersions. It really makes you look bad when the diffs actually support my position. What is your interest in that essay, anyway? To malign me? This isn't looking good for you, Andy. Atsme📞📧 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Still no ANI thread I see... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for including that diff, Andy. I actually forgot about it. I probably should have added "malleable" to the reference of WP:MEDRS but I did not. Why? Because I believe it's hogwash and that MEDRS should be followed with strict adherence - at least that is what was tattooed on my posterior during the 3 attempts to get this essay removed. Read the post before you go launching PAs against me and casting aspersions. It really makes you look bad when the diffs actually support my position. What is your interest in that essay, anyway? To malign me? This isn't looking good for you, Andy. Atsme📞📧 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Andy the Grump is harassing/hounding/stalking me. The edit I made to the essay I created states the following (underlined is the addition, my bold for emphasis): Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance either for or against something. Learning to recognize advocacy ducks is not an easy task because they may nest in a broad range of topics and articles, and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Wikipedia. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion, CAM, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. They almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is the primary catalyst for engaging in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; their goal being to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. Andy's BS accusations against me are false and unwarranted. The lady doth protest too much. He needs to read the essays on BIAS. His hounding and harassment needs to stop as it is extremely disruptive. He has been following me everywhere purposely to denigrate me and cast aspersions. He has not demonstrated even one edit of GF where it involves our interactions. Atsme📞📧 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Atsme and AndyTheGrump, I would prefer you discuss this at ANI if you have to. I would be extremely cautious about painting WikiProjects with the "advocacy ducks" brush. If a project were engaging in such behavior, it would merit something much more serious than an essay reference. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So we censor it from the advocacy essay even though we know it exists because it is even mentioned at WP:Project? Perhaps an RfC is in order. The Andy the Grump issues will be handled through different means. Atsme📞📧 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- What's mentioned there? There's nothing about advocacy. It says WikiProjects "coordinate and organize the group's efforts", but that should be in a benign way. It's no more problematic than WP:GLAM workers providing access to their employers' collections. If that coordination and organization were being done to goals contrary to policy, that would be the sort of problem I alluded to. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- It states: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. We know WP:OWN is sign of advocacy, so why shouldn't the essay include it as a possible sign? Editors need to be able to identify and learn about these things, and how to respond to them. What exactly in the sentence I added do you consider to be wrongfully accusatory or misleading? I did not name any particular project because it probably occurs in all of them - it certainly has occurred in several of the articles I've attempted to edit. Don't you think it's better to have new editors aware of it, and at least know how best to respond? Atsme📞📧 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- And off we go again - Atsme claiming (without any proof whatsoever) that Wikiproject contributors have been engaging in advocacy. It is exactly this claim about Wikiproject contributors (weasel-worded to read "appear to be members of a project") which is so objectionable. Unverified allegations about Wikiprojects don't belong in any essay in Wikipedia space - particularly so when the inclusion of complementary medicine in the same edit makes it clear that Wikiproject medicine is the project in question. This is the most respected project in Wikipedia, and has done a great deal to increase the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. If Atsme believes that this has been occurring, she should take it to ArbCom (as she previously stated she was going to do), rather than using the essay as a soapbox. To put it bluntly, it is time to put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Have you stopped to analyze your own behavior which is clearly deserving of a block, or are you so overly obsessed that you don't even realize you are the one causing the disruption? Tendentious editing and edit warring to prevent an editor from improving an essay is nothing short of disruptive. Reverting GF edits with edit summaries that are not substantive and lack verifiability are equally as disruptive. My intent was clearly stated: and may even appear to be. It did not say that it includes and we certainly don't need your incorrect interpretations of my intent or actions. Who gave you that authority? With further reference to my statement, may appear to be, I clarified it with: The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. And that is what you interpreted as an attack on Wikiproject members, [16], and then you reverted me again: revert attack on Wikiproject members - you don't get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges. [17]. Comments like that go beyond incivility. What you're doing is casting aspersions against me based on your ridiculous misinterpretation of my intent. As for ANI, there's no rush. I'm busy with another issue you helped create with more of the same reverting and POV pushing, and similar WP:OWN behavior as you just demonstrated at WP:AVDUCK. Perhaps the lady doth protest too much. Atsme📞📧 18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you think my behaviour is 'deserving of a block' take it to ANI. Otherwise drop it. You don't get a free pass to make allegations about contributors and then fail to back them up when asked to - and your continuing refusal to do so does nothing for your case but make it look even weaker. Wikipedia has mechanisms in place for dealing with behavioural issues - and they don't include running off to random administrators, making unverifiable claims, and then finding a convenient excuse not to actually follow up, with evidence, at the proper place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Have you stopped to analyze your own behavior which is clearly deserving of a block, or are you so overly obsessed that you don't even realize you are the one causing the disruption? Tendentious editing and edit warring to prevent an editor from improving an essay is nothing short of disruptive. Reverting GF edits with edit summaries that are not substantive and lack verifiability are equally as disruptive. My intent was clearly stated: and may even appear to be. It did not say that it includes and we certainly don't need your incorrect interpretations of my intent or actions. Who gave you that authority? With further reference to my statement, may appear to be, I clarified it with: The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. And that is what you interpreted as an attack on Wikiproject members, [16], and then you reverted me again: revert attack on Wikiproject members - you don't get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges. [17]. Comments like that go beyond incivility. What you're doing is casting aspersions against me based on your ridiculous misinterpretation of my intent. As for ANI, there's no rush. I'm busy with another issue you helped create with more of the same reverting and POV pushing, and similar WP:OWN behavior as you just demonstrated at WP:AVDUCK. Perhaps the lady doth protest too much. Atsme📞📧 18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- And off we go again - Atsme claiming (without any proof whatsoever) that Wikiproject contributors have been engaging in advocacy. It is exactly this claim about Wikiproject contributors (weasel-worded to read "appear to be members of a project") which is so objectionable. Unverified allegations about Wikiprojects don't belong in any essay in Wikipedia space - particularly so when the inclusion of complementary medicine in the same edit makes it clear that Wikiproject medicine is the project in question. This is the most respected project in Wikipedia, and has done a great deal to increase the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. If Atsme believes that this has been occurring, she should take it to ArbCom (as she previously stated she was going to do), rather than using the essay as a soapbox. To put it bluntly, it is time to put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- It states: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. We know WP:OWN is sign of advocacy, so why shouldn't the essay include it as a possible sign? Editors need to be able to identify and learn about these things, and how to respond to them. What exactly in the sentence I added do you consider to be wrongfully accusatory or misleading? I did not name any particular project because it probably occurs in all of them - it certainly has occurred in several of the articles I've attempted to edit. Don't you think it's better to have new editors aware of it, and at least know how best to respond? Atsme📞📧 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:AVDUCK. It helps editors learn about the various DR processes before taking the issue to the noticeboards. What I'm doing now is one of the initial steps so there will be no question that I attempted to resolve the issues before taking it to the next step; i.e., asking an admin for help. All you've done is criticize and attack and the diffs are accumulating. WP has no deadline. Atsme📞📧 19:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've read the essay thank you - I did so before I supported the (sadly rejected) proposal that it be deleted as the confused, contentious and oversimplistic mess it clearly is. And regarding deadlines, you are right. However, if you persist in making unverifiable allegations about my behaviour without following up on the appropriate noticeboard (i.e. ANI, or an ArbCom-related one) I am going to take the matter to ANI myself, and ask that you be topic-banned from commenting on my behaviour except in the appropriate place, with evidence. Like I said, put up or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Block request
Hello BDD,
could you please block this account (User:Bujo). It is my account in German Wikipedia, while on English Wikipedia I am User:RJFF. Sometimes I forget to log out and accidentally use the wrong account. This is what I want to avoid. Thanks for your help! --Bujo (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Bujo (also pinging RJFF). This seems unorthodox. Since you've effectively claimed the name Bujo here, it might be good to leave a message there explaining the situation, or to have that user page and talk page redirect to your main one. If I understand correctly, you accidentally log in here with your dewiki credentials and want to prevent that from happening? It seems like the simplest solution would be to have this account vacated, though I'm not entirely sure that's possible. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't simply blocking the account that I don't want to use be the simplest option, orthodox or not? I don't really know what "vacating" the acount means or how that works. As I would like to continue editing under the name in German Wikipedia, I wouldn't like the idea of someone else signing up as Bujo here as this might lead to confusion. Conversely, I've had User:RJFF blocked in dewiki and no one seemed to have a problem with this. Regards, --RJFF (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done I was talking about de-registering Bujo so someone else could use the name, but that might not be feasible since the account already has edits. I left a link in the blocking summary to your page in case people need to contact you. Is that alright? --BDD (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perfect. Thank you! --RJFF (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't simply blocking the account that I don't want to use be the simplest option, orthodox or not? I don't really know what "vacating" the acount means or how that works. As I would like to continue editing under the name in German Wikipedia, I wouldn't like the idea of someone else signing up as Bujo here as this might lead to confusion. Conversely, I've had User:RJFF blocked in dewiki and no one seemed to have a problem with this. Regards, --RJFF (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict
I got an edit conflict try to close the same RfD as you (with the same outcome)... maybe I should take a break and come back later while you tarry on :) thanks. Deryck C. 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Go ahead, Deryck. I'll take a break myself. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ramble
Mind Rich F. His bots are all closed down, because of abuse. He is a long time editor who constantly gets into tussles with me and I treat him politely. It does not surprise me that he suddenly takes an interest in RfD (I have already had him up three times over five years for hounding) but he takes no interest, for example, in the French articles I translate from WP:AR.
- I know I make a lot of mistakes, because I edit bit by bit per WP:OWNFEET (which, er, I may have had a hand in writing) but they are taken at Rfd WP:AGF and I thank all the contributors there for it.
- His SmackBot ruined many an article I translated from Hungarian – WP:NOTPERFECT, but better. I say in all true conscience that the best resource in the English Language for the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and 1849 is here on Wikipedia: Try finding a book in English about Hungary at all, in your local bookshop. Cos my missus and I did it and translated captions on maps and I covered my windows with blown up maps to get the coords, and did the figures and went to the libraries both in Hungary and England and we got God knows what, and when we were just starting. We put in Croatian and Serbian and whatever, we used to use as a kinda in-joke between we two Jelačić as Jellybaby. But now we have a somewhat coherable set of articles, taken to WP:MILHIST for their consideration, and we tried to be WP:NEUTRAL. But a certain Rich F. wanted to take my
{{Maygar települes infobox}}out of it to replace with the general{{Infobox settlement}}. He missed various other templates I made for the convenience. Not my fault that an Infobox Settlement is one editor's masturbation, and no other infobox be it smaller than an anthill or larger than a planet must fall into that template.
- I treat him civilly and kindly, as one would do a kitten that has not learned where to pee. But the thing that grates me most is he always signs his posts "all the best". That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Oh, should I add the words "F off, Rich F" to my sig: What I say may be nonsense, but at least it is considered nonsense. I try not to let it interfere, but he has been warned, and de-admined, and told not to run SmackBot, and I have pulled him up so many times on it ruining my thoughtful if stupid edits, I have no truck with the man.
- At least if I make an edit, genuinely and faithfully, to try to make it better, someone can revert it and say no you got it wrong Trew. And that's fine. Show me a man who never made a mistake, and I shall show you a liar.
- Some things obviously I say are sarcastic. Even then, they are not meant to hurt contributors, but to show up their own foolishness and (I hope) raise a laugh. Editing is serious business: talking about editing needn't be. Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strange how at that essay (of 2009, I did a little tidy up in 2014) there is WP:OWNFEET#Bots. I must have been thinking of something. I bear no ill-will, but I am not as green as a cucumber. Si Trew (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what brought this all on, but I'm glad to learn about WP:OWNFEET. I actually could've used that the other day in a brief dispute. I was also unaware of your history with Rich—actually, I was unaware you've been around as long as you have, having only made your acquaintance relatively recently at RfD. I don't really want to wade into this dispute further; I hope you understand. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks for replying. I don't want to either. Just put you on the qui vive. WP:FORUMSHOP is not quite right for R. F., but Ambrose Bierce defines in The Devil's Dictionary Lawyer. A liar with a roving commission. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- The word stalker may be relevant. I accused to the user before, many years ago, to which I got no reply. Yes, I have been around a bit. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it less succinctly. R. F. tends to follow where I lead. I have said so to him several times but he doesn't exactly deny it rather ignores my questions when he is interfering. I don't think he knows French, but at the French articles I translate, there will be an R. F. edit afterwards for some minor thing, a box or something or a minor edit, often a
{{ec}}because of it, I was probably going to clear up myself anyway, per WP:OWNFEET. I have a plan to tackle a translation. R. F. has put his boots in the middle when I have stacked a{{inuse}}tag on. In short, though I do not respect his work, because it is mostly makework to bump up the edit count rather than making the encyclopaedia better, and I am surprised he has survived when come up for admin review several times, but I don't want to be an admin because of that backscratching. I thought the idea was to make the encyclopaedia better. There is no point asking R. F. cos he will just toss you off with a trite response. Mine might be wrong, but at least sincere. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks for replying. I don't want to either. Just put you on the qui vive. WP:FORUMSHOP is not quite right for R. F., but Ambrose Bierce defines in The Devil's Dictionary Lawyer. A liar with a roving commission. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@SimonTrew: Since you have such a problem with Rich, wouldn't it be more productive to make your grievances known at his RFA? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, I have tried that before. I've tried lots of things before. Si Trew (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, have I got you wrong: He is requesting admin when he lost it? Am I mistaken? There is a reason or two why he lost it. I am not an admin. Si Trew (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh bloody hell that is ridiculous. I have to oppose that. Thanks for letting me know. I will do it tomorrow after I have had a night's kip. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- When I said R. F. put his foot in it, it was usually his bot User:SmackBot which was turned off. Since it was banned, it now redirects to User:Helpful Pixie Bot. Perhaps the idea that it is not helpful, but harmful, has escaped the bot owner. I asked several times for it to stand off, but it didn't. R. F.'s response usually was not in these words but "you should have done it right in the first place". From a real editor that is perhaps acceptable after actually reading the content of the translation I was doing. As if User:SmackBot had any idea of false friends or cognates or fuck all, sticking its nose in where it don't belong, like its owner, that kept it on rather a loose leash. It couldn't even understand a
{{inuse}}or{{under construction}}tag, amd trampled all over my work several times: I told its owner R. F. politely, who replied that it was just doing its job (roughly speaking). Well it didn't: Those tags are there for a purpose. And it got stopped. And good riddance to it. But now like a phoenix it rises from the dead as User:Helpful Pixie Bot. Si Trew (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)- Rich is banned from using automation and User:Helpful Pixie Bot is blocked and hasn't edited since 2012. Alakzi (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- When I said R. F. put his foot in it, it was usually his bot User:SmackBot which was turned off. Since it was banned, it now redirects to User:Helpful Pixie Bot. Perhaps the idea that it is not helpful, but harmful, has escaped the bot owner. I asked several times for it to stand off, but it didn't. R. F.'s response usually was not in these words but "you should have done it right in the first place". From a real editor that is perhaps acceptable after actually reading the content of the translation I was doing. As if User:SmackBot had any idea of false friends or cognates or fuck all, sticking its nose in where it don't belong, like its owner, that kept it on rather a loose leash. It couldn't even understand a
- Oh bloody hell that is ridiculous. I have to oppose that. Thanks for letting me know. I will do it tomorrow after I have had a night's kip. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Girl groups
Hi there. Regarding the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#List of girl groups, wondering if you happened to see the AN post I made about restoring the old list here? Basically, I'd like to undelete the girl groups list that was deleted, then merge the restored "girl group" content out of list of all-female bands into it. Unless you think that the consensus was that it should stay as one list, I didn't see that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done See also my comments at AN; we're all set for a merge. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! That was quick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of a deleted page
I recently wrote and created an article on Adam's ale. I participated in the deletion discussion about the page when it was a redirect. The discussion itself was on Adam's wine, but both were deleted per the discussion (a couple other similar "misspelling" redirects also went). I'm fairly certain the re-creation of this article (and corresponding redirects) on my part is allowed/reasonable (WP:RECREATE), but I just wanted to run it by you as the closing administrator, to make sure my actions were appropriate.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's reasonable. On a technical level, the page was created, but substantially, what was deleted was a redirect without context, whereas you've created a nice-looking article. It can go to AfD on its own right, of course, but I don't think what you did is contrary to the consensus at RfD, and I appreciate you checking in with me on it. --BDD (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirect formatting
The current style guide for redirects says to place redirect templates each on its own line, leaving the second line blank. When you closed 🎤 and 🎮, you changed them to the older all-on-one-line format. Please don’t do that. Gorobay (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. Is that relatively new? I thought they always used to go on the same line. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh, but Gorobay, it looks so ugly, especially with that line break. Why does it need to be that way? --BDD (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it’s been like that for a few years now. I actually think it looks nice: it’s less cluttered than the old version, especially when there’s multiple templates. Gorobay (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I meant the public display, not the markup. Something like this looks much nicer to me, though I suppose on the markup side it's a bit neater. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- They should be rendered the same. Do Write only language (all on one line) and `Abd al-Karim `Ali al-`Anazi (with a blank line) look different to you? Gorobay (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hm. They don't. Compare to this, though. Could the RfD template be doing that somehow? --BDD (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aha! It is the RfD template. In the expansion of the pre-RfD version, there are two blank lines, but they are ignored because they immediately follow the #REDIRECT line. With the RfD template, it is no longer a redirect page, so the blank lines remain in the output. Gorobay (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hm. They don't. Compare to this, though. Could the RfD template be doing that somehow? --BDD (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- They should be rendered the same. Do Write only language (all on one line) and `Abd al-Karim `Ali al-`Anazi (with a blank line) look different to you? Gorobay (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I meant the public display, not the markup. Something like this looks much nicer to me, though I suppose on the markup side it's a bit neater. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. That makes sense. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is caused by {{Redirect template}} - see Special:Permalink/671736724. Due to how #REDIRECT is programmed, it consumes the newline that follows; it is why the issue is only visible when the redirect is not functional. Alakzi (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed with Special:Diff/671738434. Alakzi (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is caused by {{Redirect template}} - see Special:Permalink/671736724. Due to how #REDIRECT is programmed, it consumes the newline that follows; it is why the issue is only visible when the redirect is not functional. Alakzi (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it’s been like that for a few years now. I actually think it looks nice: it’s less cluttered than the old version, especially when there’s multiple templates. Gorobay (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
- Thanks, Rich. That was a bit tough, but I'm glad to see you're keeping a good attitude, and I'm sure you'll continue to improve the encyclopedia regardless. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Requested move AZ Alkmaar
Hi, there is a move request at Talk:AZ Alkmaar#Requested move 21 July 2015 that you might be interested in. Qed237 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
we puppeted them in 2012, and we shall polk them in 2015
hey BDD! i've been doing some work over at James K. Polk (song), and i think it's basically set to be moved to the mainspace. whadda ya think? Boomur [☎] 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Boomur! I saw and appreciated your work there. I kept meaning to get back to it, but I agree it's ready for mainspace now. I was second guessing my interpretation of the lyrics, though, in assuming the song skips the general election. Maybe the three lines starting with "The factions soon agreed" cover the convention, and the following line, "And when the vote was cast" is about the general; I had been assuming all four were from the convention. What do you think? And does it matter? --BDD (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I think this was a small mistake, as you tagged the redirect itself with "keep". :-) --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I close a lot as delete, so sometimes muscle memory just steers me wrong. --BDD (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |