Jump to content

User talk:BDD/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Move request of Lower Assam

For Lower Assam, we have Lower Assam Division. So, let me know your view. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Lower Assam should be moved to Western Assam because of the existence of Lower Assam Division? See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No, i am not saying that. What i am trying to say is Lower Assam is a administrative division not region. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It can't be both? --BDD (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Consider moving it to Western Assam, otherwise advice next step. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You already tried that at RM. See WP:IDHT and move on. Try again in a few months, preferably with new evidence. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Then atleast confirm that article is about region not division, so it correctly reflected in lede, which is matter of dispute itself. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should raise that on the article's talk page. I'm unfamiliar with the subject and wouldn't know how to go about doing so. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking for review of the closer's comments in a MRV?

You recently added Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 July#Moctezuma II at WP:AN/RFC. The MRV was opened apparently to disagree with the rationale you offered in your closing comment, but will not change the article title even if successful. Are you aware of any precedents for the review of a closing comment? If the MRV were to overturn the decision of the original move closer, this would result in what? - reclosing of the discussion with a new rationale written by the MRV closer, or a brand new discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. I think a note at the original move would suffice. My comments should probably stand to give context, but if you think it's the right decision, maybe just a note in a box, like the one now that says the close is at MRV. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

POVTITLE vs NDESC

I note that you closed a move request [1] of 2013 Egyptian coup d'etat → 2013 Egyptian revolution, on the grounds that 1) POVTITLE applies, and 2) the proposed title was just as POV as the current one. I strongly agree with the second point, and I think that it justifies closing that MR as consensus against the specific proposed title. But I'm perplexed by the first. Why is POVTITLE applicable, rather than WP:NDESC? That is, why should "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" be considered "a name" rather than "a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors"? Thanks. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The section heading of NDESC is "non-judgmental but descriptive" titles. 2013 Egyptian coup d'etat is descriptive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's non-judgmental. Plenty of intelligent editors argued otherwise. The event fits the definition of a coup, but calling it such instead of a revolution still involves a judgment call. Compare to WP:TERRORIST. It's ultimately a judgmental term that is still ok because reliable sources have called it such (POVTITLE), and since it meets the definition. But I don't think we can be completely objective here. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding NDESC? It seems to me to be saying that if a title is descriptive, it has to be non-judgmental. That is, it says that if the title is a description rather than a name, POVTITLE doesn't apply. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm just working off of that section heading. "Non-judgmental descriptive titles" implies, to me at least, that a title can be descriptive but judgmental, or even non-judgmental but descriptive, otherwise that phrase would be redundant. --BDD (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitary break — Move request of Lower Assam

I am afraid, if anybody will there to judge it. As you are involved, if its not admistrative division then its geographic area automatically. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So do it neutrally, and be willing to work with someone else to come up with the best wording. You could try leaving notes at WikiProject India or WikiProject Lower Assam (ahem) for assistance. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually Lower Assam topics are written by me alone, as subject is little known to people outside the region. Wikiproject Lower Assam, Lower Assam article and Lower Assam Division article are all created and developed by me only. Western Assam, also known as Kamrup is my primary topic here and most related articles are written by me only. So, there is hardly any possibility of help from outside, sole reason i am nagging you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You could at least find someone else with some knowledge of Indian geography. I really won't be much help. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem, but please see this edit summary by main disputing user. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This move confirms that Lower Assam is administrative division. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So, pointing to said points in your closing note, intiate a move. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect rename

Hi. I think it's incorrect position. Article needs for rename procedure. Please revert this move and go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Advisorspeak en-2 17:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not revert, as there was nothing wrong with the move. However, since there was no participation besides the nomination, it would not be inappropriate for you to start a new RM there, with evidence that the old name was better. If anyone complains about you starting a new RM so soon, I'll back you up. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not obvious. Advisorspeak en-2 11:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nicki Minaj discography

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nicki Minaj discography. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Noticed your post in the WP:LQ RfC

You do know that you are allowed to "vote" in more than one category, right? You can put your support down for both "Follow ENGVAR" and "Allow either" if you want to. It's probably moot at this point anyway (at least until the next time this rule gets challenged). Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

commas

We've added a "survey" section at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas, in case you want to be counted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 barnstar

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for copy editing articles totalling over 4,000 words in the WP:GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive. Thank you for your participation! – Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Library (movie)

Yes. --BDD (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Surprised

That was a surprise! With the many thousands of CNRs, will this begin a trend? The fellow whose rationale was that it wasn't useful, was he counting the unknown possible external links that may now be broken? Some of those could be on sister wikis and other language wikis. Why do you suppose SNOW has worked so long at Rfd to stop the deletion of mainspace CNRs? BDD, I will not nor never question your judgement, because you have served Wikipedia well. Just my curious side rearin' up. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:CNR sums it up well. Cross-namespace redirects are "moderately controversial." "Very old ones might be retained," though this one was only made last year. I don't think any redirect which doesn't qualify for R2 necessarily should be kept; best to assess them on a case-by-case basis. It would not make much sense to cite this decision as precedent for deleting future CNRs, as others have been kept, as you noted. Have such redirects been given a blanket SNOW endorsement at RfD? Perhaps individuals. If so, it may be time to update WP:CNR. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your question, I tag a lot of redirects with category templates, and I've been working mainly with the pseudonamespace types like P: and T:. I always hit their targets' 'What links here' pages to check for other shortcuts. Often I find redirects just like the above that survived from 1 to 3 Rfd's with a SNOW reason for keep in the page history. And there are many more that haven't been tested, so we'll probably see some of them in the future. Since there isn't really a fine point put on old vs. young CNR's, it will continue to be a judgement call. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Chavez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Chavez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chavez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

commas

Hello - you participated in the RM at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas which may interest you. If you have not done so, please consider contributing to the survey or discussion. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Nguyen dynasty

Just curious how you found "narrow support" for the move. My count shows 2 neutral (Labattblueboy) (AjaxSmack), 3 anti-diacritics ( 76.65.128.222) (SnowFire) (B2C), and 2 pro-diacritics (nom) (༆). For Hong Bang, it was 1, 3, 3, with Ajax going pro-diacritics. Am I reading that wrong? Dohn joe (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The IP and AjaxSmack both indicated procedural support for both moves. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
But that's still only 3 in favor of a procedural close, with 4 against (if only by inference, given that 3 of those commented on the substance without explicitly addressing the procedural issue). Right? Dohn joe (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Who was against a procedural reversion besides B2C and Snowfire? --BDD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, there was this from Labattblueboy: "The move for Nguyen dynasty was made on 20 July 2011, a full two years ago, at this point I think it's fair to say that it's current title is stable. I can't support on the basis of reverting a past move but I will review and comment as to it's general validity....Reverting after two years just seems like a stretch to me." And ༆ only addressed the substance, not the procedure, so I think it's fair to say they were either fine with the procedure or were neutral. Dohn joe (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Any reactions or thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The request had already been relisted, and in total was listed two and a half weeks without a strong consensus. I had to make a judgment call, and I found weak consensus. If you disagree with the decision, you can take it to MRV or make a new request with new evidence. --BDD (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magick

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Magick. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Undid my close of the move discussion

Hello BDD. I reverted my own close of Talk:Journey Through the Decade to allow discussion to continue for another week. By reverting the page I managed to undo your entry in the 'oldmove' section, but I assume it's no longer needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All Good Things...

Since you changed the target of the redirect All Good Things..., please fix all of the links to that page so that they point to the correct article. --Srleffler (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, WikiProject Disambiguation is pretty active about working on those sorts of things. When RMs are carried out, there are often links that need fixing, especially when a move changes a primary topic. If closers were expected to fix all such links themselves, however, it's very likely that the RM backlog would be much worse than it is. In this case, many of what appear to be incoming links were actually from templates. I do fix template links myself, but it can take up to a few days for the WLH function to recognize that they're no longer there. --BDD (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the change in redirect target for now. It is not appropriate for you to break dozens of links and create more work for other editors. The redirect is fine as it is until the links can be fixed. I added a dabnote to the Star Trek episode article to help readers who are looking for other articles. When all links to the redirect have been fixed, then it will be appropriate to change it to point to the dab page; not before.--Srleffler (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, but that is no more appropriate than unilaterally overturning an AfD would be. Please seek consensus for your position at WT:RM, WP:VP, or another appropriate forum. Alternatively, use a new RM or WP:MRV if you really want to reverse the move altogether. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so the existence of some untargeted links is a poor rationale for singly overturning a consensual decision. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, it appears that by the time you retargeted the redirect, incoming links had already been fixed, likely by that efficient WikiProject I mentioned (see the dab history). The redirect in question now has no incoming mainspace links. Make sure you check on these things before acting—this project cleans up fast. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I did check, but missed the fact that the long list of links were all talk pages and project pages rather than articles. Sorry about that.--Srleffler (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ILMUNC Page

Dear BDD,

You may recall a while ago when I requested the opportunity to update the page for the Ivy League Model United Nations Conference. I was wondering if at this time, you found it satisfactory to be restored from being "userfied". We have included links to the United Nations website as well as Best Delegate, the widely recognized authority in the Model UN community. If not, please let me know how else I can edit the page.

Best, Stephanie

Stevab (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Steve, I noticed you had several categories listed on your user page describing yourself, but that was resulting in your user page in appearing in topical categories such as {{International law}} with encyclopedic articles. I replaced those with Wikipedian-specific categories, where users categorize themselves by profession, location, etc. I tried to to reflect as accurately as possible what you seemed to be trying to convey, but please accept my apologies if I erred in any way. --BDD (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I was wondering about that.--Steven McIntire ALLEN 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rename voting

Hi BDD. I saw your vote and indeed there's no problem now because article is completely rewritten. Problem lies here: This article started as Kurdish-Iranian conflict and it included various rebellions and militancy with different motives, but suddenly it was renamed as Kurdish separatism in Iran. You can see previous version here: completely different, biased, misusing sources, violating OR & SYNTH, etc. That's why I protested on talkpage and demand rename, but since POV version has stand almost one year I've deceided to completely rewrite it according to current name; everything unrelated to separatism was excluded per talkpage. This case is something like having article named as England with content about United Kingdom. There are only two solutions: rename, or exclude everything irrelevant. --HistorNE (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That version still has the Simko Shikak revolt as the earliest event. For the purposes of the move request, I don't see how this is any different. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I didn't exclude Simko Shikak revolt since scholars agree elements of separatism were present in his movement, but not primary motive. So it fits under separatism for sure. However, for KDPI's insurgencies in 1960s-1990s all scholars explicitly states "not separatism" (see: Talk:Kurdish separatism in Iran#Table). --HistorNE (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was focusing on the "Iran" → "Modern Iran" change, but you're primarily concerned about "separatism" → "insurgency"? Are you dead set on the former? I'd probably be neutral if not for the subjective "modern Iran" construction. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. There were numerous of clashes between Iranian government and Kurdish rebels, even some tribal motivated revolts in 1920s and 1930s (also previously incuded, but I exluded it because it also wasn't separatim and Greyshark later agree with it). That's why I proposed keeping large synthesis about all of them, but properly named ("insurgency", "militancy", "revolts", "rebellions"). Alternative solution is to keep current name with less content because it's more then clear all of such revolts doesn't fit under "separatism". Perhaps even having both articles as third solution. In my opinion, first option is best one. --HistorNE (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Shusha massacre

Hi. With regard to the rename discussion, I think what is discussed is not whether to move Shusha massacre to Shusha pogrom, but the other way around, because Shusha pogrom was moved to the present title without any discussion. I don't think it is appropriate to move pages without any discussion, especially when there is a decision by a mediating admin to keep the article at the previous title until there's a consensus for a new title. Regards, Grandmaster 19:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. All I did was relist the request to see if we can build consensus for or against the move; right now, there's neither. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the discussion as no consensus. That means that there's no consensus for the present title, as the article was moved without any discussion from the title that existed for many years. Should the article be moved back to the original title? Grandmaster 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hm, tough call. The current title stood for a couple of months before any discussion started. The event certainly seems to qualify as a massacre, but sources more often call it a pogrom, that's relevant. Let's see if I can summon a few RM admins I respect for their perspective. What would Cuchullain, EdJohnston, and Tariqabjotu do? --BDD (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to get a broader perspective on the issue, of course. So I totally support any involvement of the aforementioned admins. I'm just really not happy with the fact that someone moved such a contentious article without any attempt for discussion. That is absolutely not acceptable in an arbitration covered area, and with consideration to the troubled history of this article. Grandmaster 23:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I got the ping, so I thought I'd weigh in. I would probably lean toward restoring the title to "pogrom", as it was moved with no discussion despite substantial previous discussion and the fact that the title had been stable for years. Even still, I think it would be more fruitful to try and determine which is the common name; that was something that didn't come up in the discussion. If such evidence is found, BDD could reopen the discussion if he's so inclined, or we could start a new one in a while.--Cúchullain t/c 17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That is a very good point, but I think this was discussed previously at talk of the article. But since the undiscussed move destroyed the links to the archives of the past discussions, it became difficult to follow what was discussed. The sources refer to the event either as a revolt/rebellion/uprising, or a massacre/pogrom. In my opinion, most of the sources used in support of the name "massacre" do not qualify as reliable ones. So it is hard to determine which one is more prevalent, as the event is not very well known outside of the region and does not seem to have a universally accepted name. Grandmaster 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Good catch. I've moved the archives for now. They'll be simple for an admin to move back if it comes to that, but in the meantime, as you say, it's good to be able to review past discussion. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars move

Hi. After this requested move, I have a question: how could you say that the result of the proposal was moved? Only the nominator supported the move, then an other user wrote a weak support because "with no assertions as to common name yet". Then I wrote that "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect to "30 Seconds" per WP:COMMONNAME; the majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds" since it is the original name and also the band currently uses both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". I was opposed to the move and another user too. So, why did you move the page even if there was no consensus? Take a look at the band's page on Allmusic, which is the largest digital archive of music; it says that the official name is 30 Seconds to Mars and the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars [2]. I think that you made a mistake.--Earthh (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? I see you and an IP in opposition, compared to the nominator, bobrayner, Red Slash, and Mayast in support. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually only the nominator expressed support, while Red Slash was in weak support.--Earthh (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You do know everyone's opinion counts, right, not just the ones who bolded a support or oppose? Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The others did not express support or oppose to the move.--Earthh (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you to read the last discussion on the band's talk page.--Earthh (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

African Union

could you close this one? I merged it with the article, since there were no objections. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Kordell Samuel wikipage

Hi, greetings.

This is Bryan, Sporting Director of Trebol Sports International. We represent the interests of our client, Kordell Samuel.

We are a reputable sports management and talent scouting company which has contacts worldwide. Here is one of the many media reports on our company: http://imcms2.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileserver/documents/006/PDF/20101029/2910SPC048.pdf.

We are baffled as to ehy his wikipage was deleted repeatedly by the administrators. As I am not a technical person (it took me hours to do up the wikipage), I don't understand the deletion log.

Pehaps, can you kindly advise us what can we do to reinstate our client's wikipage?

Thanks!

Bryan Bryanlbh (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bryan, and please pardon my delayed response. The article on your client was deleted because it did not meet our notability standards for footballers. So I'm afraid your best chance of having the article reinstated would be to represent his country in a FIFA-sanctioned senior international match, including the Olympics, or to appear in at least one match in a fully professional league. In particular, since the article was deleted by discussion, it was deleted twice more when recreated under our speedy deletion criteria, and with the third deletion, I protected it from being created again. Once your client reaches our notability standards, you can get in touch with me and I'll happily restore the article for you so you don't work from scratch. Please be aware, however, of our conflict of interest policy whenever working on an article for a person you represent in a professional capacity. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Thirty Seconds to Mars

An editor has asked for a Move review of Thirty Seconds to Mars. 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. Earthh (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A puzzling RM

Hello BDD. I notice you relisted the debate at Talk:List of precomposed Latin characters in Unicode#Requested move. The content of the article is unreferenced. Browsing various websites devoted to Unicode I can't confirm that this table is correct. At most I can check one or two characters and verify that they are precomposed. It concerns me that Wikipedia might be a source of misinformation. If we were hoping to fix the title, we might change it to 'Examples of precomposed Latin characters', which would avoid the implication the list is complete. Even so, random Wikipedia editors taking out characters that are obviously not precomposed is hardly a form of verification. Do you think that the RM should be closed as No Move and we could simply blank the table, pending a reference? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That sounds like more of an argument for deletion. Are you just talking about blanking the first table (the large one) or both? --BDD (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I would take out both tables, unless a reference is found. The only thing I can find on the web is a form that lets you check one character at a time whether a certain character is precomposed. A Google search for 'precomposed Latin characters' doesn't terminate anywhere at an obvious place. Due to the open-ended nature of Unicode I suspect that there may not even *be* a complete list of such characters. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That wouldn't leave us with much. I suspect this would fail WP:SAL due to a lack of sources discussing them as a group. Have you done any looking for sources? From a quick Google search, I see a lot of how-tos and help forums, but nothing really suited to our purposes. It survived AfD in 2008, but it was pretty weak and seemed to be mostly focused on a content dispute. --BDD (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The article was created back in 2007 by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked. See Richard Gillam (2002). Unicode Demystified: A Practical Programmer's Guide to the Encoding Standard. ISBN 0201700522. for a book that can be partly read online thanks to Google Books. It is also instructive to search Korpela's 2006 book for the word 'precomposed'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Butler

Hello, it appears that The Butler was moved to Lee Daniels' The Butler in disregard of the last RM discussion. I think the move should be reverted and a new RM discussion started if the editor wishes. Can you undo the move? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've carried out the move and put on move protection. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the move! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

a move discussion you once closed

Can you please have a look at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#title discussions? I think you correctly assessed the first part of that move request section as no consensus, but I'm not sure if you noticed that second part. The current talk page lists it as two separate discussions, but there's only one set of archive tags... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been long enough since that discussion that I think a new request would be best. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Move review: Adroit etc

Hello
You closed this Move Review recently with the comment "The closer correctly assessed consensus in this discussion...however, a new request with evidence would be fine."
So, am I missing something?
I had thought RM decisions were not a matter of simply counting votes, but of weighing the arguments on both sides; I don't get any sense of this having been done in this case.
Also, the alleged lack of evidence for the requested move is a bit irritating; the evidence is all over the articles, if anyone cared to look, and is confirmed in the linked discussions. What is lacking (then and now) is the evidence to support the move to the current titles.
I also don’t see the point of me re-requesting this, with or without further/more explicit evidence. The first RM got three replies in three weeks; if it is similarly undervisited then it’s likely it’ll just be dismissed for lack of turnout again, regardless of the case made. In fact if there is any consensus on the subject, it’s that RM stalwarts do not want these pages moved, as far as I can see.
So, where do things go from here? Put two fingers up to process and move them anyway, citing TITLE and reversal of an unexplained/unsupported move? Walk away and leave them at titles that don’t match the text or the sources on the page? How much should care about having things done decently and in order? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't expect anyone to make your arguments for you. If you see evidence "all over the articles," present that evidence in the discussion. Like I said, you may do just that in a new RM, but if it's not successful, I strongly recommend you review WP:IDHT and move on. --BDD (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was expecting folk to follow guidelines, really: As for evidence, if you can't see it, you can't see it, I suppose. But I still feel the close was flawed, and that no-one, from the closer onwards, has been prepared to do anything about it (except blame me, for trying to get things fixed!).
I have to say I’m pretty disenchanted with the RM process, so I’ll probably go for option (a) (per WP:BOLD) or option (b) (per WP:FUCKIT).
Anyway, thank you for your time, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Romina Arena 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:
  • (music)|classical crossover]], [[rock Opera]], and [[New Age music|New Age]] [singer-songwriter]]. She was born May 12, 1980 and grew up in [[Palermo]], [[Sicily]] and now lives in [[Los Angeles]].
  • Denver, [[The Colosseum at Caesars Palace]] [[The Bellagio]] and [[Paris Las Vegas]] in Las Vegas], [[Italian Embassy, Washington, D.C.]] and the [[RMS Queen Mary|RMS ''Queen Mary'']] in [[Long

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fever (Little Willie John song)

Since the prior request failed, shall I propose another alternative title immediately? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? If it's Fever (Cooley and Blackwell song), I don't think that's a good idea. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambuation

There will eventually be an article here about this popular restaurant chain, and the title song may well have its own article one day. My move was not really "unnecessary": I was looking ahead and being consistent. Cheers... Doc talk 05:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitals in templates

Please do not remove the capitals from names of templates like you did in this edit. Names of templates are capitalized, see for yourself. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

First letters don't matter in MediaWiki software. Just a compulsion of mine. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That is true. But if anything, the capital is the true name. Your compulsion should be the opposite. :) Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moms Demand Action

Hi, I understand the reason for removing the category, but just keep in mind that from a purely academic standpoint someone has to dig a bit more to find all of the articles about groups that have a stance on firearms. The category includes the subs, so there is another means, but it takes additional effort on the reader's part. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's WP:SUBCAT for you. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Four Award

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Four Award. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey BDD. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Institution Of Analysts and Programmers

Please can we have our page reinstated.

I have only been in post for a few weeks and am only just now finding out we have a Wikipedia page. If you can reinstate I will look to updating it, I think in the past it was a quick cut and paste job.

We do have several other web sites referencing us, some do it as the Institute Of Analysts and Programmers, not sure how I handle that, but presumably set a page called that with a link straight to the proper page. We are a well respected professional body and have links with many universities including Plymouth and Oxford, plus many leading businesses in the UK.

It is wrong to say we are not referenced elsewhere as I found 100's of references just via Google.

Thanks is advance John.C.E.Ellis (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing complaint regarding user HistorNE

Dear BDD, a complaint over disruptive editing of user HistorNE at Kurdish separatism in Iran and related articles was opened at [noticeboard - incidents section]. As an involved party in this incident you are welcome to express your opinion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

About the move of A.C. Chievo Verona

I request to revert the move as it does not notify the footy project. More source that the club intentionally joined Chievo and Verona into one word ChievoVerona, just like Pergocrema. The Club History use without space. Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But the project was notified of the move. Not immediately upon its listing, but there was still time after the notification for input, and no one contested the move. I don't see grounds for a revert. But neither do I see grounds against a new RM with more evidence. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Paris aire urbaine"

Hello,

I left a rebuttal to your approval of the Paris aire urbaine page move; although 'Paris metropolitan area' may "sound good", I think that there are a few facts you (and all in the debate) should be aware of. Thanks for your patience. THEPROMENADER 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BDD/Archive_9&oldid=1151015616"