User talk:Bondegezou/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Christian Union

Hello, Bondegezou. You have new messages at Talk:Christian Union (students)#Who can join.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, may I recommend that you archive old content from this rather long user talk page, onto separate sub-pages? See WP:ARCHIVE. I would be willing to do it for you if you like. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AV deal with Labour without referendum

I accept that William Hague believed that Labour had offered AV without a referendum on 10 Maay 2010 when he conceded the referendum on live TV.

There is however no evidence that Labour made such an offer. This Michael Crick blog makes this fairly clear:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/was_the_coalition_built_on_a_l.html

Ahead of tonight's Newsnight special on the coalition (at 2230 on BBC Two) it is worth asking a big question:

Were Conservative MPs railroaded into accepting the coalition on the basis of a lie, or at best an unfortunate misunderstanding?

That's the allegation which has been swirling round among Tories at Westminster for several weeks now.

One Conservative MP - far from a right-winger - reckons David Cameron lied to the shadow Cabinet and his backbench MPs at least four times in the hours leading up to the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems on 11 May.

The big issue is whether the Conservatives needed to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on the AV voting system.

Mystery especially surrounds what happened on the afternoon of Monday 10 May.

I recall William Hague emerging from St. Stephen's entrance of the Commons with the surprising news that the Tories would now offer the Lib Dems a referendum on AV.

I suggested to Hague that the Conservatives were now merely matching Labour, who had been promising a referendum on AV since Gordon Brown's speech at the 2009 Labour conference, and included it in their 2010 manifesto.

Oh no, Hague told me, he understood that Labour was now offering the Lib Dems AV WITHOUT a referendum.

I must admit Hague's comment disconcerted me. I failed to follow it up, simply because I feared I was uninformed and that Labour had made this promise during the course of the day and I hadn't noticed.

And it's now clear from several government Tory sources that David Cameron told both his Shadow Cabinet that afternoon, and the meeting of all Conservative MPs that evening, the same thing. His argument was that they had to do something to catch up with Labour's offer to the Lib Dems of AV without a referendum.

But it wasn't true. There's no evidence that Labour ever offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum. Indeed it's hard to see how the Labour leadership ever could have got Labour MPs to go along with such an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichasAA (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I've put a summary of that into the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Psychology of pain

Continuing the email exchange:

Thank you for your kind response. I'm hoping to find editors with a broad-ish view of one or more of the sub-fields of the psychology of pain. I believe the article, Psychology of pain, may benefit from a section on health psychology as it relates to pain, and was wondering if you, or someone you know, might be interested in having a crack at it - or any other section/s. I've just asked retired Prof. Gary Rollman if he'd be interested in the psychophysics section and he has declined to do any writing but is looking for a good overview of the topic I can use as a basis for the section.

Please don't feel under any pressure at all over this, I just thought I'd run it by you in case it tickled your fancy.

Presently I would like to see the article summarise the way the following deal with pain: behavioural psychology, cognitive psychology and the psychotherapies that emerge from them, health psychology, social psychology, neuropsychology, and psychophysics; and possibly also psychophysiology, social neuroscience and psychiatry. But I'm wide open to suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation (help) needed

Thanks for the help Bondegezou! I'm not usually flustered by easy functions but multiple citations from the same source always confuse me; I never do it right! doktorb _words^deeds 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mid Ulster

Hey Bondegezou. Good work on Mid Ulster. I emailed the Treasury along the same lines and got nowhere! Maybe he's "done a Gerry Adams" and assumed he's resigned just by sending in a letter and not thought any more about it? In any case, we can say without doubt that there's no chance of a 2012 election date. doktorb _words^deeds 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My guess is he's just not done it. I'll guess we'll see if there are any further developments. And thanks for all your work on the various by-election articles! Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's back! doktorb _words^deeds 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I took [1] and others to be sufficient indication that this is now happening. Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

Hi, just thought I'd let you know there's a little discussion going on here regarding Sheffno1gunner reverting your edits. I've warned him about mislabelling your edits as vandalism, but I suspect this issue isn't resolved yet. Thanks! – Richard BB 11:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

Hi there, I thought that this might interest you. Apparently much of the consensus that was achieved on the article was done through two (or more) sock puppets. I notice that these sock puppets have often argued you down when they didn't like your opinion; now that they've been exposed, I'd say now's the time for you to speak openly and freely. – Richard BB 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Eastleigh

Hi, can I suggest a compromise? When UKIP pick a candidate we add the disputed material to that section such as 'UKIP have picked Joe Bloggs as their candidate for the by election. Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, previously...' Rsloch (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point. If the material warrants inclusion after UKIP pick a candidate, it warrants inclusion now. The question is whether it warrants inclusion. On that question, I turn to policy and the amount of RS coverage.

Perhaps we should stick to the Eastleigh Talk page to continue the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism at the John Wetton article

You seem to be arguing that a little bit of plagiarism is OK, if it serves a useful purpose. I don't agree. Wikipedia has been stung badly by those who researched and discovered an awful lot of plagiarism in Wiki articles. The powers that be at Wikipedia are determined to stamp it out, and helping them to carry out that stated policy. I suggest you read the article [[2]], and then get back to me as to why this Wetton article should be allowed to continue to use plagiarized statements. If you cannot give me solid evidence that doing so is OK, under Wikipedia rules, then I will revert your last edit there. Please respond in the Plagiarism section of the Wetton Talk page. 71.93.90.163 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:John_Wetton#Plagiarized_material. In short, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ekklesia (think tank)

Re Ekklesia (think tank) and negative quotes. I thought the Guardian quote from the Bishop of Willesden was a significant indicator of notabilitity and a reasonable indication of their position wrt the established church. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not The Guardian saying something about Ekklesia. It's The Guardian commenting on private comments the Bishop said on a social networking site. The thrust of the article, such as it is, is to comment on the Bishop's indiscretion. It's hard to see that as "a reasonable indication of their position wrt the established church." It would be better to have cites that are directly about Ekklesia, as with the other citation you gave. Bondegezou (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland "rule"

From what I remember, an editor who doesn't contribute any further ("O Fenian", I think his name was), hauled me up at the Arbitration Committee for breaking a rule agreed by the Northern Ireland project. That rule turned out to be "You can only revert once anything related to "The Troubles"". I pointed out that explaining to readers why Gerry Adams did not consider his resignation to be a resignation (or whatever!) was not directly related to "The Troubles", even if Gerry Adams himself is, and this soon closed the issue down. In short, I suspect an editor with a grudge fancied playing silly devils. doktorb _words^deeds 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problem... and also how it really isn't a problem at all! Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Only 3 seats.

What's the definition of 'only' in this case? Eg (or ie?) do the Lib-Dems have "only 57 Members in the House of Commons"? I note they have "only 5 seats" in the Scottish Parliament. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious question. Only is a potentially weasely word, I'm definitely not trying to suggest any intention of bias, or that 3 out of...800ish isn't an entirely sensible usage, I'm just curious as I didn't actually see it on a list of words to avoid (ie, 'claims')... 92.15.74.200 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. One can't give a precise definition, but it seems a reasonable word to use in this context. If you think otherwise, change it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Shields by-election, 2013. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruesome Foursome (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For some reason this warning didn't display the additional text, so here it is: you not being able to understand an edit is no license to edit war [3]. Given your past statements to me about 3RR and OWN, your actions here are hypocritical, at best. The change is being made because information like that should not be presented as a list of single sentences - it should either be prose in proper paragraphs, or sectionalised. If you still can;t understand this, then use the talk page. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:South Shields by-election, 2013...

Gruesome Foursome, you have complained in the edit history and on my user page that I am edit warring here. I reverted three separate formatting changes you made. I only reverted each change once. This is not edit warring. Let me quote from WP:EDITWAR:

"Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

You have twice previously been blocked yourself for edit-warring over Mid Ulster by-election, 2013.[4] It appears you are reacting against that previous history. Might I suggest you take another look at WP:EDITWAR? Might I also suggest that you explain your suggested changes here with respect to Wikipedia policy: see WP:EP? Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT WAR says "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". Describing the candidates as a list of single sentences was clearly your preferred version here, and you restored it three times. I see no exemption for when my attempts to fix the article (WP:EP) were all slightly different (using sections or prose both fix the problem, I'm not tied to either), nor for cases where you can't understand my clearly stated reason for making the change, so you were undoubtedly edit warring. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not what happened. Bondegezou (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome Foursome has since been indefinitely blocked for incivility elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner socks

Hi Bondegezou. About this edit, which I only just noticed, you're adding it to the wrong page. You need to start a new SPI report using the form at WP:SPI. If you just add a new section to the archive, no-one will see it, and you won't have the benefit of the SPI templates automatically doing the formatting for you. It's a shame I didn't see you edit earlier, because I could have done something about it, but now it's stale so there's not much point blocking. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thanks. Your comment is timely as s/he's started up again. Report listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

UKIP article

Hi there, I've now referenced the link 'Civic nationalism' in the 'Ideology' section of the infobox. Netsurfer123(talk) , 14:09, 8th May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is a core part of their ideology, especially bearing in mind that so many opponents brand them 'racists'. I believe that this referenced link demonstrates that UKIP stand for a type of nationalism which incorporates many races and religions and which is not ethno-centric. It is an integral part of their ideology, hence the fact why they state that they're 'non-racist' on their website description. Netsurfer123(talk) , 18:54, 8th May 2013 (UTC)

Due to the fact that you're uncomfortable with 'Civic nationalism' being placed in the 'Ideology' section of the infobox, I have instead made reference to it under the 'Policies' section. I understand what you mean about the infobox being only a brief summary, thus I have mentioned the topic elsewhere on the article :-) Netsurfer123(talk) , 19:15, 8th May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Perhaps this discussion would be more useful at the article's Talk page than here? Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A variety of books

Just checking - is this (your edit summary - "Given opposition to this edit, let's take it to a deletion discussion. That's the appropriate process at this point") from [[5]] the appropriate response when there is disagreement about a redirect? i.e is that an appropriate response here: [[6]? StuartDouglas (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stuart. I would think so. If someone wants to get rid of a whole article, then that's effectively a deletion. If someone objects and the first person persists, then an WP:AfD would be the best way to settle the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

re "consensus"

regarding your request for seeking consensus. Consensus has already been reached: Challenged content cannot be restored without providing reliable third party sources. There is nothing even close to a WP:RS in that content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached on this article. Take it to AfD, which is the appropriate process when wiping a whole article and the edit has been disputed. If you are unfamiliar with the process, I would be happy to walk you through it. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no local consensus that could be reached on the talk page that would override policy and allow the restoration of content that has been challenged without the presentation of reliably published sources. Please revert yourself or provide some reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated it for AFD if you care to come and weigh in. It's likely to merge but being a deletionist I think problem solved either way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hell in a Bucket, but I can't see the AFD nomination...? Do you want to try again? Bondegezou (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually mistook this one for another of Obverse books The Ninnies however it looks like they both fall under the same thing. Here is the link [[7]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

On which subject, what's the process here, where several different editors have removed a tag, but one editor with some sort of bizarre agenda and who has issues with the Guardian and Smooth Radio as reliable sources merely keeps changing things back (here as elsewhere)? [8]. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTE lays out the right approach to dispute resolution. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks StuartDouglas (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend leaving the sources as they when they are added, this is will be redirected whether they are added or not. No sense in upsetting yourself for something that will not be here anyways, and if it is then we can clean the dross then. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who Spin-offs

I've noticed that a lot of Doctor Who spin-offs aren't well referenced, and from some edits on some of these articles it appears you are also concerned about the quality of the coverage. I put a proposal at Talk:The Spirit Trap that maybe some lightly covered series of CDs should have a single article, either per "season" or for the whole series.

You might not have a view as to what route to take, just preferring someone to do *something* to improve these articles, but if you wish the topic is there. Rankersbo (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Have commented there. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please can we not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I appreciate that some of the extended spin-offs such as Jago & Litefoot, Companion Chronicles or Bernice Summerfield are perhaps stretching notability, but Bondegezou you appear to have pasted a deletion proposal notice on a large number of Doctor Who audios starring the original Doctor actors themselves, i.e. the Big Finish "Main Range". I think the Main Range and Eighth Doctor Adventures are sufficiently notable to be left in place, firstly because they star the original Doctor actors in their original roles, and also since the BBC have been broadcasting a selection of them on the radio and are likely to broadcast more. I mean, pretty much any branch of any major bookseller in the UK will have Main Range CDs on the shelves. They are not really a niche mail-order-only item like the extended spin-offs.

Please can we have a gentlemen's agreement that the Big Finish Doctor Who "Main Range" and EDAs are sufficiently notable, but that the spin-offs-of-spin-offs such as Gallifrey, Dalek War, Jago & Litefoot etc. require a higher degree of notability in order to avoid the cut? Andrew Oakley (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything demands the same degree of notability (WP:N): we can't make local policies (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I prod'ed those articles because I really don't see how they are compatible with Wikipedia policy and practice today. Great stuff for a Dr Who-specific wiki, but WP:N and WP:RS are cornerstones of how Wikipedia works and we can't keep ducking them. But that's my interpretation and I could be wrong: if you disagree, WP:DEL lays out what to do. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I interpret the flags as a kick up the backside to the Big Finish fans among wikipedia editors to improve the articles. Many Big Finish releases are given a quickly knocked together stub, but few people want to do the boring, and necessary work of searching out and providing secondary references. Many of these pages lack even the easy primary references to the Big Finish website Rankersbo (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have merged Gallifrey: Series 4 but note two of the episodes lack continuity sections due to your current quality drive. Basically it was a single release, like Dark Eyes, so should only have one page. Rankersbo (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the merge. Merges and re-directs seem a good way to go for many of these articles (I'd suggest maybe just a single article for the whole Gallifrey series?). The numerous continuity sections across many articles look like WP:FANCRUFT: they are not supported by citations and they take an in-universe perspective. Again, I don't see how they are compatible with Wikipedia policy and practice today. There is a place for them on the Internet, I'm sure, but not on Wikipedia. But my quality drive, as you call it, has been rather haphazard! Bondegezou (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe when I have time to do this. I think I need to spend a week off hereRankersbo (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I noticed the following. Please note I did not propose it! Rankersbo (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's find some reliable source coverage, improve those articles and put forward arguments against deletion! I've begun with some work on Cold Fusion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Great a positive attitudeRankersbo (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for working to improve the Doctor Who novel articles. When I first joined Wikipedia back in 2006, one of my first manias was to stub all the Virgin and BBC novels. You know, on the premise that if you plant a seed, eventually it will blossom forth into a full article. So it's nice to see someone watering the shrubs. :) Cheers, and hope you enjoy the weekend. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ABWH

Hi, i want to report that yesworld.com is going to include ABWH in Yes Discography. --79.43.0.155 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will review how the relevant articles are handled. I'm actually working with YesWorld these days, so I'm not certain what the implications of that are! Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

CttE Lyrics (IGUIGD) in YesWorld are wrong. Here the right ones:

In her white lace/She could clearly see the lady sadly looking/saying that she’d take the blame/For the crucifixion of her own domain.

I get up. I get down/I get up. I get down

Two million people barely satisfy/Two hundred women watch one woman cry/Too late.

The eyes of honesty can achieve/(She would gladly say it amazement of her story)/How many millions do we deceive/(Asking only interest could be laid)/Each day?/(Upon the children of her domain)

I get up. I get down/I get up. I get down

In charge of who is there in charge of me/(She could clearly see the lady sadly looking)/Do I look on blindly and say I see/(Saying that she'd take the blame)/The way?/(For the crucifixion of her own domain)

The truth is written all along the page/(She would gladly say it amazement of her story)/How old will I be before I come of age /(Asking only interest could be laid)/For you?/(Upon the children of her domain)

I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down.

I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down. --79.35.29.117 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Over the fall-out over article quality between various people I strayed into WP:AfC. You can lose your life there.

Have a look at this Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Annie B. Bond I am thinking that this article is ready for the wider wikipedia community to have a go at. Part of me thinks she may be another McKeith or Holford, but she seems high profile enough to warrant an article. Any ideas as to what cats to put on it or tags?

There was also a UKIP candidate with an article in the creation process that I may send your way. Rankersbo (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never delved into AfC before. Wow. I'll take a closer look at Annie Bond. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrites. Rankersbo (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kernow Positive Support. The section on history needs editing down and de-WP:SOAPing a bit. I've already had this article csd'd once so it needs to be right before it goes again. Thanks for any help you can give. Rankersbo (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Generator cover

Big Generator cover is wrong. The correct one is yellow! The green one is alternate. --82.51.12.161 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who and BRD

You need to review the terms of WP:BRD. Your revert was made during an ongoing discussion, when the article should remain at the stable (with the reference to Hamlet) state. The burden is on the editor(s) wishing to make the change to gain consensus, not on those wishing to remove it. I'm not going to revert again because this will resolve itself soon, but you are warned that you are on the verge of edit warring, and should make yourself aware of how BRD and CONSENSUS actually do work. --Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about BRD. The Hamlet reference was the B, it was R(everted), there is now a D(iscussion) on the Talk page. The burden is on those seeking to add the statement.

Given no citation was given for the claim and citations have now been provided specifically contradicting the claim, it clearly should not be included anyway. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on that, if I might say so! Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Me again. My apologies. I see now that the Hamlet reference was in an earlier version, so it's initial removal would be the B. However, given the citation against the claim and none for, the removal is clearly appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

olinguito

Since you refuse to allow simple copy editing, I've deleted the nonsensical transcription. — kwami (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Kwamikagami. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, tagged it instead. Maybe someone else will correct it, since it violates WP:DICT and is generating an error-tracking category. — kwami (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you would explain the reasons for your edits sooner. Indeed, I would recommend to you, again, that you consider and follow WP:BRD. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:RESPELL

oe and ih don't exist in our RESPELL; the equivalents are oh and i. The first syllable takes 2ndary stress and should be capitalised. — Lfdder (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be useful if you could bring that expertise to Talk:olinguito. I don't generally do edits on pronunciations and it took me a while to even work out why you were telling me this! Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to Scientology groups violate rules from wikipedia

This constitute propaganda, so I must to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.187.233 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your edits in the comment field, otherwise other editors do not know why you are doing something. Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

European Parliament - MEPs standing down

You appear to be right about Nattrass. He has not stated an intention to stand down. However, I have provided other sources to confirm that Godfrey Bloom will not be standing again. The Mirror source clearly states that he will sit out his term, suport Jane Collins, his replacement and maintain his UKIP membership. Maintaing membership of one party makes it impossible for him to contest an election under another party banner. Hope this helps. Thanks again for your correction on Mike Nattrass.CardBoardBoxLiving (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arvinn Eikeland Gadgil

I spotted this in the system. He appears notable as a member of the Norwegian gov't but could do with some copyediting before going live. Rankersbo (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for London Britannia Airport

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not remove notability tags without reason. It is considered vandalism and disruptive editing. 41.132.229.100 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response here appears to be a retaliation for past disagreements and warnings on your talk page rather than an honest warning. I would suggest you step back from your current actions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

41.132.229.100 has since been blocked for one day. Bondegezou (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wythenshawe Byelection

Hi :-) Thanks, for taking an interest in my edits of the upcoming byelection. I've been having problems sorting the table out, you mentioned I was using the incorrect format, could you point me in the direction of the correct format please? In line with previous byelections, it is standard to add the candidate box as soon as we have candidates to put in them and then add other candidates as they are announced. I have also started this discussion on the talk page. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you do something about this?

Hey Bondegezou! I hope you're well. Sorry to post here, but I thought you could do something. It seems HurluGumene is editing Yes-related articles and moving the ledes into the main body as "Overview". Why, and why Yes-related articles, is beyond me. I have reverted them once and they have been changed back. Their reasons: "Better that way!". Can something be done? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm on something of a wiki-break for a week or two, so unlikely to have much input. Have you discussed what the Manual of Style recommends with HurluGumene? Bondegezou (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Dolphin of Constructive Comment

	The Dolphin of Constructive Comment
	Thanks for your level-heded contribution at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Request_for_comment! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

An Independence from Europe

Bit of a problem with dates in this and related articles. You wrote that the party was launched in 2013, infobox says founded in 2013, Nattrass was deselected by UKIP in 2013, he launched AIFE in November 2013 etc. Similar dates appear in related articles. But, the Electoral Commission database shows An Independence from Europe was registered by Nattras on 26 June 2012. Now, I understand that a party can be formed and launched on different dates, but the discrepancies here are startling. Any ideas how to proceed on this? Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission also records annual statement filed on 18 March 2013 (total income a £25 donation and total expenditure £25 on miscellaneous). Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess we just report everything. I'll have a go at an edit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. It's an interesting concept though - registering a party while still a member of another over a year beofre the apparent split. Clearly more than meets the eye here. Emeraude (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Very interesting find. I think Nattrass was unhappy with the UKIP leadership for a while. I'll see if there's any more RS citations covering the period that might be relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith

You're literally edit warring with me making edits to force negative information into a biography of a living person- some of it is sourced to the Daily Mail, some of it isn't sourced at all. It's entirely possible that the content does belong in the article, but until we have better sources, it's going to have to stay out- that's the very essence of our biographies of living people policy. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear- I misread the PhD thing, and assumed she had a legitimate PhD in some non-nutrition subject which she was using to add weight to her claims about nutrition. However, "by implication referring to the controversial manner in which she attained her Doctor of Philosophy degree" seems to be unsourced editorialising. We get that Goldacre has issues with her, we don't need to list and explain every reference he makes to her qualifications. The Mail thing stands, though- we can't include negative information about a living person sourced to a newspaper of the Mail's quality. Guardian, Telegraph, Times and the like, yes. Mail? Certainly not. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A single revert of an edit does not constitute edit warring: it is a natural part of the WP:BRD cycle. Your edit has been reverted, so I suggest you now take the matter to the Talk page for discussion. (My apologies if you've already done that as well. I haven't checked yet.) The details of your concerns are better discussed there than here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there, as well as asked for a third opinion at the BLP noticeboard. I apologise for suggesting (and retract my suggestion that) you were edit warring, which you clearly were not. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

projekcts

Hi, why did you undo my edit? I'm not complaining. I need to know for future reference. If you simply undo an edit without an explanation, new editors or relatively new editors won't understand your rationale. RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for such notes as to what other articles link to an article. Bondegezou (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, however your undo removed the link that I created from Anglagard to that section of Projekts. Also, the note that I created was exactly, to the letter, what the guidelines were telling me to do. MOS Piped links I would greatly appreciate it if you could change it back to the way it was,please. RespectfullyCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I believe. My undo removed only the note, and the note is not what the guidelines tell you to do. The link you created on the Anglagard article was not affected by anything I did. Bondegezou (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou, so, can you explain to me, please, what I've done wrong, and how I can get it right? RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou and CaesarsPalaceDude. Such a note is recommended by MOS:LINK2SECT when piping a link:

"When doing this, add a hidden comment to the target section such as <!-- the article WP:LINK links here --> so that someone changing the title of that section can fix the incoming links."

I've re-added it just below the section heading. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Voceditenore. My apologies, CaesarsPalaceDude, for my error and the confusion it must have caused you. I hope the other problem you were having with the link has also been resolved. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, Bondegezou. I had no idea about that guidance either until CaesarsPalaceDude asked me about it and I looked it up. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

An Independence from Europe

I see you deleted the external links to the party's leaflets. I'd wondered about that. Clearly, linking to a party's website for direct propaganda is not acceptable, but that's not the case here. However, neither does it appear to be an archive or repository for election leaflets (that would be useful). Not that I intend to, but would it be acceptable do you think to link there if the text says that party is in favour of X and the leaflet supports that as a reference? Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO, surely, means we can't link to someone who has put leaflets up without evidence of permission to do so. I have no problem with linking to the party's website or using a leaflet as a reference on matters of what the party's policy is. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have though so. Copyvio surely only applies to copying a work and passing it off as your own. Just linking to a leaflet is the same as linking to an online book or magazine article. Used properly (i.e. in a reasonable quote with attribution) should not be a problem, and I have never to my knowledge seen a political leaflet with a copyright assertion, icluding those that rattled through my doors yesterday on their way to the bin. Grey area though. Emeraude (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER is what I should have cited. Everything is copyrighted: it doesn't need a copyright assertion to be so. Whatever those links were, they didn't appear to be to an official or approved archive, so we must assume that they were violating copyright. At least, that's how it seems to me. If I scanned a magazine article and stuck it on Dropbox, the same would apply. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Emeraude (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Things we have in common

Hi Bondegezou, my area of interest is bands like Yes, King Crimson, U.K., Änglagård, and many other prog bands, some of them obscure. When I looked at your user page, I quickly realised that you were one of the good guys (because you care, among many reasons). So, we could look at the discussion above as a way to introduce ourselves, and that would be a positive outcome, regardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's very nice to meet you. I could tell by your username that you liked similar bands. :-) Plenty of Wiki-work to be done on prog rock bands. Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou, you could take a look, if you like, at my post at the Progressive Rock talk page. This particular band has nothing to do with doom metal, and everything to do with symphonic prog; even though it is called "Cathedral". I would value your opinion, if you have the time, regardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendum article tagging

Hi Bondegezou. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well reworded Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 - thanks Bondegezou. M Mabelina (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Clacton by-election, 2014

There is no comma in the BBC's text and the BBC's text is wrong and clearly makes no grammatical sense. What do we do. Shall I find a news organisation to cite that has some people who are capable of transcribing without being illiterate? --LeedsKing (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE lays out the approach Wikipedia takes. If the lack of comma disturbs you, you can use "[square brackets] for added or replacement text", i.e. add "[,]" where you think the comma is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes/ABWH

Please see my comments at Talk:Yes (band). The biggest problem, IMO, is that ABWH were occasionally called "Yes", but Yes were never, to my knowledge, called "ABWH". Perhaps this discussion should extend to the Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe article and its talk page. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp Sovereignty

I added some references to Camp Sovereignty. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Sovereignty. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency)

Morning.

A user moved the above to just Lanark and Hamilton East some time ago, and as I'm not an admin, I can't do a thing about it. As you know, the project was able to make (UK Parliament constituency) a disambiguation permitted to be included on the relevant articles, so could you or someone you know please move the latter to the former? I've done a *very* naughty thing by doing a copy/paste edit, but you know me and this topic, I'm passionately against exceptions being created. Any help would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 08:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi doktorb. You don't need to be an admin to move a page: anyone can do it. But now you've recreated Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency), Lanark and Hamilton East can't be moved back because there's something in the way! So now we do need an admin. I suggest you go to WP:RM. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, oh will this bumbling ninny ever learn! I will see what I can do, ta Bonde! doktorb _words^deeds 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

The mediation Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band) have convened an RfC in order to stimulate discussion on the key issue in the mediation. Unfortunately, only a few Wikipedians have expressed an opinion which is causing a dilemma. All parties have agreed on a shortlist of editors whose thoughts, and experience we believe will be valuable to this RfC. You are, therefore, personally invited to assist us, by giving your opinion, whatever that may be at the Ayers Rock RfC CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that a couple of editors on our short list have responded to our call for help with the RfC. If you intend to contribute to the RfC, we will certainly wait. If you have already decided to pass, could you drop us a line on this talk page or somewhere we are going to see it, please? The thing is that we have been on this mediation so long that I have no desire to count the months; some closure would be nice. Thankyou for your time. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a look and didn't feel I had anything to offer the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a great day. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Henry Cow

Hello. There was a discussion about was Roelofs a member of Henry Cow on Henry Cow talk-page as it is not so clear. I recommend you to read the referrences and say your own opinion. 87.93.68.108 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Experiment on how to get people to edit Wikipedia

Hello. Nice Op-ed in The Signpost! You might find Insights into abdominal pregnancy of interest. Part (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will take a look. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Labour candidates for deletion

Dear Bondegezou, I saw your comments about RathFelder puting non notable labour candidates on wikipedia. I agree with you totally. Please can you start removing them e.g. this one as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uma_Kumaran

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hello Bondegezou, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulterbristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for creating an article about Stephen Lipson: my favourite guitarist and my second favourite record producer (after Trevor Horn of course). I'm also a Fripp-a-holic, so thanks for all the Crimson-related articles too. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition of First Past the Post to UK election article

Is that site a reliable source? I noticed you pointing out at the start of the discussion that we should only add sites according to WP:RS. This site, however, is doing something really strange: it calculates some win probabilities based on betting sites (fair enough) but then it runs Monte Carlo, and their description of this does not make any sense at all. "When the random value is less than or equal to a candidate's win-probability, that candidate wins." So if the random value happens to be 0, ALL candidates for a given seat win...

Is there any media organization that refers to this website, or uses it for their predictions? KarlFrei (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good points.

On their methodology, it seems sensible to me. While they've not worded that bit very well, they're doing a standard Monte Carlo. If you have a bunch of seats where, say, Labour have a 60% win-probability and the Conservatives have a 40% win-probability, you can't just assign those all to Labour. A Monte Carlo simulation handles that. In that context, you would split the seat into 0-0.6 for Labour and 0.60001-1.0 for Conservative, then generate a random value and see where it falls.

Is it RS? I hope it counts. I first saw Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com referencing it. I'll look further into that question and report back. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I half-remembered, the New Statesman's May2015.com are referencing them sometimes: e.g. [9]. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Asato

Why do you want to remove all that material?Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not there to record everything a person says or everything said about them. I felt the material I removed was trivial. Feel free to revert as you see fit. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

2nd nomination for AfD of Uma Kumaran article

I just wanted to let you know that I've renominated the article on Uma Kumaran to AfD.

Since you were a contributor to the original nomination, your input would be appreciated in this discussion.

Many thanks

--RaviC (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

538

Hi Bondegezou, just a bit of a query really. 538 has gone from the main GE article prediction section. Is it suposed to be gone or has it been chopped in error? Asking yourself really as you keep a closer eye on these things than me, regards - Galloglass 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I removed it. Turned out they were just using Election Forecast; it wasn't a separate prediction. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Suspected it might have been duplication, cheers - Galloglass 22:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Unintended thanks

I didn't mean to thank you for that edit - finger slipped. Dreadful mobile interface makes it far too easy to thank by mistake. It also won't let me add this to end of page -sorry! PamD 05:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jen Dawson

Please replace the paragraph you deleted on Jen Dawson. It is true. I am her. I made the change because it is true Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessiya (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	I thank You! Agricola Planitius (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ORCID

Hi,

Please see WP:ORCID for details of how to add your ORCID iD to your user page, and to use ORCID iDs in any relevant biographies you edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015

I have nominated the article for deletion. Please discuss there. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Medworxx

Could you have a look at this article please? It's been speedily deleted twice as being promotional. A fresh eye would be very helpful. It seems to be a significant, and successful, company with software which attracts a lot of favourable publicity, only some of which is self generated. Do you think as it stands it's defensible? If there was any negative coverage, where would it be? I haven't found any. Rathfelder (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is defensible.

In terms of revising the text, I'd probably drop the "Patient tracking systems" section; and make the sections "Canada" through to "Australia" into lower-level subsections and trim some of the detail. I think that would make it look less promotional. A Google Scholar search threw up a few citations that may be useful.

It's hard to find negative coverage in situations like this. I don't see that as a problem personally. We follow what RS there is.

Let me know what happens. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Are you going to the Wiki Science Conference? If you do, would you please chat with Daniel Mietchen about Wikidata and health data? He has the best ideas of anyone on this subject, I think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I'll look out for him. Looking forward to much talk on Wikidata at the event. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tim Weidner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Weidner 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/Tim Weidner 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. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Manika Article

Hi! I've noticed that you're cleaning up the Manika article. I'm glad, but please take a look at my old edit and make sure to remove all the false information from it like the fake chart positions. Take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page

Good luck! AyanP (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP

Thanks for your work identifying problems with the article. Have you asked for page protection to stop problematic editing? Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't even know how to do that! And the bigger problem is that lot of reputable Wiki users often think I'm the vandal whenever I make edits; they thought the original Manika article was fine because everything was cited and I was destroying it maliciously, but web citations don't mean the "facts" in the article are true. All the sources are her own official website, her social media and her own interviews. I've actually visited Billboard, Kworb.net, AllAcess, Mediabase, etc. to verify the information and most of it's NOT true or twisted around like a press release. Take a look at Oshwah's talk page for details. I'm assuming another user picked up on this because of the edit war and nominated it for deletion. If that's necessary, so be it. AyanP (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP

WP:RPP explains how to ask for page protection. Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ludwik Fleck

Check out Ludwik Fleck, particularly

• The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, (edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by Thomas Kuhn) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. This is the first English translation of his 1935 book titled Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv Schwabe und Co., Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel.

Merger of Oleogustus

Bondegezou, thanks for doing the merger. Something to keep in mind for next time, though - there are a few extra cleanup steps, including removing the merger tag from the target page and adding tags on the talk pages of the two articles (see full-content paste merger). I did them for you. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Inducing fetal demise and unintended live birth

Hi, I just found a clinical guideline, by the Society of Family Planning (Publisher of Contraception) regarding induced fetal demise that could help to shed some light on under what conditions an abortion procedure results in unintended live birth, and how common it may be. http://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf Does this sound relevant to today's article about the Supreme Court and the Texas law? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/abortion-at-the-supreme-courts-door.html?_r=0; Also, here's another source, specifically addressing what happens if the procedure depends on inducing fetal death but it doesn't work: http://jme.bmj.com/content/16/2/61.short Another thought... do you think that it would be appropriate to add a link to the abortion section of the feticide article somewhere in the Abortion#Methods section? -146.23.3.250 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first numbered question of the SFP guideline they reference the incidence of unintended live birth. -146.23.3.250 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

John Bickley - UKIP PPC for Oldham West & Royton

Hi Bondegezou - I can see you are much on the case stamping out any erroneous edits to John Bickley which I applaud wholeheartedly. Perhaps I should point out that I have recently corresponded at length with Frinton about how contributors can most efficiently improve Wiki, and his guidance was most gratefully received and very helpful indeed.
Since you appear to be quite high up in the Wiki strata I thought it as well to say hello because I noticed you deleted a couple of sentences in the Bickley article which I introduced - you are quite right, they were unsourced so I have corrected that omission. I have to say I am a bit dismayed that the level of trust among Wikipedians has sunk so low, which makes it inevitable that one has to spend more time justifying oneself than actually improving the articles - couldn't this be improved somehow? Anyway keep up the good work & looking forward to hearing - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a regular editor: I have no particular position in the Wikipedia strata. I think good ways to improve the situation on Wikipedia are (a) to always assume good faith oneself about the activities of others; and (b) respect the basic principles of Wikipedia (WP:V &c.). Another good thing to remember is the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Bondegezou (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never experienced anything like this - I know it is not your "problem" but the amount of vitriol that stems from Frinton & AusLondonder is beyond belief - even if I didn't have any preconceptions (I had suspicions) why are they so obsessive about rounding on this topic - it is not even me - because I edit on a host of other topics - whenever the Labour Party becomes involved they are on my case like flies. I don't get a word in edgeways. This is no way to provide considered edits & improvements to Wiki. In fact, howsoever you personally may deem their behaviour to be, I find it to be thoroughly objectionable and enthused by ulterior motives (whatever they may be!). The fact is it is not helping Wiki - but being a stubborn old one I foolishly have allowed myself to get sucked into all this tomfoolery. How to restore order? Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I just reverted your last two reversions Bondegezou because they have been discussed ad infinitum & sourced properly. M Mabelina (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Frinton100 AusLondonder (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina, your description does not accord with what I've seen. If you find it difficult to assume good faith in other editors, if relations are getting tense, one thing you can do is take a break from areas of discord and focus your Wikipedia efforts elsewhere for a while. Then, after a break, come back and see if things still seem as bad as you thought. What does not help is getting into edit wars: let go of your stubbornness if you want to help Wikipedia be better! Bondegezou (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you do the same?! M Mabelina (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If I feel I'm getting overly frustrated with the situation, I will certainly follow my own advice. I hope you, me, User:Frinton100 and AusLondonder can all resist any temptation to put our own frustrations ahead of the goals of Wikipedia: WP:OWN is a relevant essay here. An easy way to do that is to stick to basic Wikipedia principles, like WP:BRD and WP:BIO. Bondegezou (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of political parties who have no MPs or seats

Can you please explain why parties such as BNP and the Respect party, who have no MPs and no seats be represented here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Moreover this approach is inconsistent with the approach taken by John Maynard Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum&diff=691594332&oldid=691594047 -- I mean, without sounding funny, why not include everyone and anyone with a view.

"TUSC nor English Democrats have parliamentary representation and thus are not notable" - the same principle applies to both above mentioned. How do we determine "notable"? In context to the section I refer to, it is: if they have MPs, first and foremost.

Also, the inclusion of these "dysfunctional" 'parties' could tarnish both the Greens or UKIP. Why not add my granny, or next door neighbor!?

Aside from the fact we may agree with your implied sentiment, perhaps -- all contributors must uphold standards of description, account and editorial, above personal principle, since this is the right & democratic thing to do.

Including them is unreasonable since you could argue that the list should contain all political parties who do not have MPs or seats. Otherwise, it is an unbalanced account of what minor parties believe. Edjones1s (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent because these are two different sections of the article that are being edited. The "history" section is referring to the period (mainly 2010-15) when it was being publicly discussed whether the UK should have a referendum. During this period the BNP had MEPs and Respect had an MP (George Galloway), so their views were reported at that time. The section JM Friedman was editing relates to the views of the parties now, or looking forward to when the referendum will actually be held (between now and the end of 2017). These parties matter less now (if at all) because they no longer have any elected representatives. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what User:Jmorrison230582 said. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted you to know I appreciated all your effort on Mary Kardash! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2016

I have undone this edit, can you please site your source before you remove the fact tags, Thanks 82.18.177.13 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Non-Candidates, your contribution would be greatly appreciated 82.18.177.13 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Answered there. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of parties in infobox

Hi. Sorry to revert but there is a logical case for the largest three parties in Westminster as they are so much larger than he rest - or for the top 6 to include some of the smaller, but difficult to see a reason for top 4 other than to allow the Lib Dems to be included. Please outline the case for your preferred option on the talk page. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, you need to establish a new WP:consensus before making changes. You have not done that. Please do not WP:EDITWAR. Wikipedia has well established procedures for resolving disputes: see WP:DISPUTE. There is no need to rush this discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Establising consensus requires discussion. I look forward to your contribution on talk outlining why you believe that 4 parties should be in the infobox rather than any other number. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was and continues to be an ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Particularly over a holiday period, you need to give people time to have their say. I would recommend WP:BRD to you. There is a time to be bold to trigger a discussion, and there is a time to be polite and let others speak. When dealing with a highly contentious issue that has produced considerable discussion previously, the focus is going to be on the 'D' in BRD, not the 'B'. Bondegezou (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The sole point of support

On the seats/votes RfC, I have just noticed that you are the sole opinion, very generous, that is keeping the RfC from being closed as by WP:Snow. Are you sure about this sole point of support? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for the RfC to be closed now by an uninvolved editor if they feel that appropriate. This has been a contentious issue and I just want due process to be clearly followed to minimise any hard feelings. Bondegezou (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Hi, a friendly request - please stop removing the sovereign citizen movement from the See Also section of this article. Numerous sources in the article comment on similarities between the militia rhetoric and the movement, and individual members' connections to the movement. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. WP:NOTSEEALSO is the point. We don't repeat links in the See Also section. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and green light I think

Thanks for working on the Occupy timeline transfer. The last post from P seems to say he will stop arguing about it, and all other comments are favorable. Its' a pain to redo one's clerical heavy lifting ... been there done that... but if I read it right, if you have time and willingness there's no risk of EW claims if you wanna take another crack at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Refuge occupation

As I said on the ANI page, I haven't followed the debate and I don't get involved in administrative matters, but in general I support pruning main articles and spinning off extraneous detail to sub articles, and it sounds like you've been helping with that. I appreciate the contributions! CaseyPenk (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, CaseyPenk. Didn't mean to drag you into the debate there(!), but felt it useful for that discussion to clarify events. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Context is important as often these things are the work of multiple people. All things considered, the article is in a much better state these days. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

HighInBC 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Preventing Disruption

Hi B, Just checking in after the ANI closed. I have two unsolicited observations to make....

First, whatever the admin says in the closing and whether anyone gets a block is not the measure of success. The only purpose of these proceedings is to prevent problems from continuing. From what I have seen, the problem is sometimes resolved by the experience, even when admins close without blocking anyone. So in case you're feeling let down... don't despair! Success should be measured not by the closing instructions but by the DIFFS ahead, and whether they comply with our various rules and Principles in the ARBs' US politics case.

Second, I've spent nearly 10,000 edits in the climate pages, which are lightning rod for lots of problems. I've found Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE or just AE) to be much less tolerant of all the chaos and mud that we just witnessed. Which is why, as new eds arrive and seem to stick around every last one of them should also get the template for DS, which is a requirement before they can be brought there. If you don't know you do have to check to make sure they didn't already get one... or more specifically get the one specific to US politics after 1932. You type {{subst:alert|ap}} ~~~~. To check if they already have one, I usually type "discretionary sanctions alert" in the tag field of their talk page version history.

Keep on truckin'. But I'll probably fade back for awhile.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your comments and work on the Malheur articles. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Docker's Guild

Hi,

I removed the 2 comments in the DG talk page because this guy has been trolling and vandalizing both the article and the talk page under different IP addresses but by using the same kind of language an phrases. Probably someone who has a grudge with Docker. many editors and myself have been spending a lot of time deleting and cleaning up the mess in the last few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.59.42 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Those Talk page comments did not look particularly troublesome to me. Sometimes letting people have their say on a Talk page works well to defuse a situation.

If things are more serious, have you tried WP:ANI or requesting semi-protection? Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Miranda Grell

Today you have deleted factually correct information about Miranda Grell that was either supported by the facts of what occurred during her two trials or have been corroborated by links to independent news organisations. What is your justification for removing factual information about her for no reason? Either Wikipedia a neutral online space that attempts to publish factual information or its editors are misleading readers by promoting their own biases. Deeply disappointing. Pinamoni (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it is you who needs to read your own editorial policy. Miranda Grell continued to pursue her appeal at the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2010. This is a fact. Barry Smith's partner was given a suspended prison sentence in 2011. This is a fact. That Miranda Grell is now a commissioning editor for an online magazine specialising in legal issues, particularly miscarriages of justice is a fact. You had no justification at all to remove these facts apart from your own political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinamoni (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that, as per WP:BRD, you bring these suggestions to the Talk page for the article in question and make a case for the edits you are proposing? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Misleading directs

Those United States presidential election in State, 2016 articles need to be split up, with creation of proper articles to be linked to. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That is perhaps true, but for now, those articles are where the relevant info is, so why not link to them for now? Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We've some articles like New Hampshire Republican primary, 2016, but many of the others State/territorial primary & caucuses, don't have article. For now, I'll adjust the article links, so that they go directly to the 'primary/caucuses sections of the US prez election in state, articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be very useful. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

George Galloway

My edit about George Galloway is 100% accurate please leave it in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.115.176 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You should not replace a sentence with a cite given with your own text because the cite given does not support your new text. If you wish to add something new, then please provide a reliable source citation for the specific point you are adding: see WP:RS and WP:V for guidance. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

UK election infobox

Consensus was clearly established for the new infoboxes on the 2015 and 2020 UK election articles. There is an ongoing discussion for the 2015 article about changing that. You are very welcome to input into that discussion, but you should not WP:EDITWAR. You should establish consensus to change before imposing changes. This is standard Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will continue to revert as the israeli-only infobox has no consensus - you claim consensus on the talk page yet all i see is a small amount of talk and a lot of you riding roughshod in attempts to dominate. Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't = consensus. See Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox. Timeshift (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The key discussion is at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 3, but there's more in the other Talk archives. When that discussion was going on, that was the next election article. I also suggest again that you review WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done for ignoring Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox, for not discussing and for edit warring, and for continuing to ride roughshod. The infobox you're reverting to is used only for Israeli elections and no other. The rest of the world uses the infobox that 99% of all UK election articles use. Truly embarrassing. Timeshift (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to put forth your arguments for what infobox to use. I note you are mistaken about the Israeli-style infobox, which has also been used for Dutch elections, while other infoboxes formats have also been used elsewhere (e.g. check out the discussions around the recent Spanish election). Whatever your views, please respect the community and do not make changes until consensus has been established. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This has now gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. What a disgrace. Timeshift (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Islamic Republic of Iran Army Day

Considering that you participated in the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Army_Day your opinion would be appreciated regarding the suggestion at the bottom of the page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Army

--Dreddmoto (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

UK general election, 2015

Thank you for your edit. Please do not use the 'Dutch infobox' on the 2015 UK election page unless you are prepared to go back through every UK election since 1801 (and indeed back to the Act of Union) to do the same. It is inconsistent to treat 2015 as some special case apart. Common sense is required on this. Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please input into the RfC at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I already have done. I note that you haven't. Inserting the Dutch infobox constitutes edit warring, removing it does not.Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

During an RfC, you stick with what was there at the start of the process. There is no rush: have patience and respect the dispute resolution processes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ankit Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankit Love 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/Ankit Love (2nd nomination) 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. N4 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead section of Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Hi, I would welcome your further comments about whether the effect of the referendum on stock markets/the pound should be included in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Iris Robinson

Hi. In the Iris Robinson article you state that Peter Robinson in Canada was getting trolled in confusion. He is originally from Yorkshire and still has a house there, so I believe it would be more accurate to say 'Canadian based author'. Thoughts? Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that seems sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn

Its a attempted coup - so clearly - mass resignations by right wing labour mps who were shoe'd in by blair shortlists. Jeremy has stood his ground democratically and they have lost the high ground , they have no one the the membership support - game over - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of resources that explain how Wikipedia works and covers contested situations, as often arise in politics. I would suggest you peruse WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

L party leadership crisis

Ok, sorry I got a bit excited. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Docker

Hey there, would you mind helping out over at this page? While I agree there is some silly stuff going on, user Janthana is trying to blow the entire page up, and apparently seems to think they have full edit control. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Technocrat (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry because i've removed a row in this page as i though it a duplicate row :)--Yufitran (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard issue

If you want to continue the COI issue, please do so at the COI Noticeboard, not my talkpage. Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: You closed the discussion. As per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, as I understand it, if I wish to challenge that, I am meant to take it to your Talk page. My apologies if I misunderstood. I didn't wish to return to COIN without discussing the matter with you first. Are you OK with me re-opening the discussion there? Bondegezou (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I reopened it at COIN per your request. However take note that the regulars there won't take kindly to a verbose discussion. You will have best results if you lay out your COI issue concisely. - Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so and for the advice. Bondegezou (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Another bit of free advice: remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. - Brianhe (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales Leadership Election 2016.

Bondegezou I look forward to adressing these concerns with appropriate wikipedians. The characterisations made by Bondegezou are simply unsubstanciated and claims of disruptive or edit warring are clearly false. The Talk page entries discussing the conventions which are described regarding notability I have found to be contrary to Wikipedia best practice. I have set out the nature of the inductuive reasoning inherent in the approach for which Bondegezou claims consensus and there is no consensus as I have enumerated quite clearly. Inductive logic is not the most easily precised of concepts although I felt my approach setting out the relevant wikipedia policy related to it was actually pretty clear. Contrary to the claim that "notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him".[10] are not bourne out by my engagement with the arguments. I await further advice from other wikipedians.  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 

COI concerns please attend to this urgently There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

How about Malheur Occupation?

Hi Bondegezou,

I just saw your comment in the Malheur article talk page, and your suggestion got me to thinking about another possibility. I was wondering if you might get a chance, if you might be able to comment on my "further thought" on the matter over there? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds extremely vague. The current title is fine as is, and I don't see any problem with it. Parsley Man (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Batley and Spen

Hey. B&S by-election page needs help, I'm limited to how much I can do, any chance you can have a look? There's an IP address dumping paragraphs and I don't know how to sort it properly... doktorb _words^deeds 10:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you were right to revert. I've started a Talk page discussion and will see if we can extract some useful content from all this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

template construKction

Hi Bondegezou I did this change in the KC template to reflect the CD cover design. All references are changed accordingly. I just couldn't change the initial T to lower case. Just wander if THRAK and VROOOM are worth the job when I see reluctances. --Grnaz (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Grnaz, WP:MOSTM encourages using standard English capitalisations rather than the more artistic choices the artists might go with. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I finally reached to display a nice display for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_construKction_of_light

without showing error or warning. This is just a small tweak with the title initial lowercased (because this is ignored in searches etc...). I don't really understand why some like Apple are allowed to display iPhone (as per WP:MOSTM because it is a phonetically dettached initial, but other are not). Okay, now it's OK, would you like however I undo all the job ? Grnaz (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Grnaz, as I understand it, we should be using standard capitalisation. I don't myself think any clarity is achieved by insisting on "the construKction of light" rather than "The ConstruKction of Light". But I'm no expert in such matters. You could ask at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

An Evening of Yes Music and More

Thank you for your clarification. Though US states are not countries, the four nations of the UK (Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland) are countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyolf87 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:CambridgeBayWeather, for your note. If you could input into the dispute and advise what to do about edits violating AGF like this, that would also be helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You can find suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Of course when you get caught up, and it can be easy to do, it's not always easy to remember. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bondegezou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Canterbury Music Website

Hi, I believe you know Aymeric Leroy. Do you have any idea what has happened to his Canterbury Music Website? The address I've always used (http://calyx.perso.neuf.fr) is dead. I can still pick up his pages on the Wayback Machine (for eg. http://web.archive.org/web/20160303174627/http://calyx.perso.neuf.fr/bands/chrono/henrycow.html). But maybe he has simply switched to another domain. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: Hi. It moved to here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll update the url on pages that I know reference this site. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Asia and infobox

Asia (band): Difference between revisions: By saying "Doesn't meet criterion of two people in common" are you claiming that Bands need to have "two people in common" to be considered an associated act? If so, then there are many, many, many pages that need to be corrected. For example, the only person Asia and Asia featuring John Payne have in common is John Payne. Also, the only person in common between Emerson, Lake and Palmer and Asia is Carl Palmer. Also look at the associated acts for Kiss. Please point me to any such Wikipedia requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMohr (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesMohr: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts explains the requirements. Asia and AFJP have had 3 people in common as Govan and Schellen were in Asia and then AFJP. Greg Lake was briefly in Asia, so that's 2 for ELP. I don't know Kiss's history, so I can't comment there, but if there are bands that only have one person in common, I suggest you remove them. Bondegezou (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts says "This field can include, for example, any of the following:". The use of the word "can" does not imply "requirement". It clearly says "for example" which obviously implies there other things that apply, as well. If you people are going to nit pick about things like this and use words that have very specific meanings and are clearly *not* there, then I say "piss off" and I will spend my time doing other things.

@JamesMohr: It then says, "The following uses of this field should be avoided: [...] Groups with only one member in common". That seems pretty clear to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A thought

Have you considered becoming an admin? You've got enough edits and consistent editing here for years and years, and you seem to know your way around the back end of things. p.s. You could archive your talk. Fences&Windows 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Fences and windows, for the compliment. It's not a path I wish to take at the moment though. My editing interest is too erratic! Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. My editing interests have always been erratic, but RfA in 2009 was perhaps kinder! Fences&Windows 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Putney

Hey Bondegezou

I can't revert the article Putney, Roehampton & Southfields (UK Parliament constituency) back to where it should (just Putney). Any chance you can help out it back please? Thanks! doktorb _words^deeds 09:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: I think when you can't move a page because there's already something there, then you need an admin to help, which I am not. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It always surprises me when I remember you're not! I'll see what I can do doktorb _words^deeds 09:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements in the 2017 UK General Election

Calling someone's edits vandalism seems a serious charge. Especially when someone else's edits hold logic. Adding blogs such as ConservativeHome or Lib Dem Voice added and contributed to the article. Adding these blog groups shows the reader the many diverse opinions and viewpoints in the United Kingdom regarding the General Election . The Weekly Woeker has 20,000 online viewers a week (in addition to the 700 papers it circulates weekly). Furthermore, this paper has as obvious a bias as any of the new and controversial blogs/papers added. ConservativeHome on the other hand, claims as many as 300,000 views online, a much higher figure. Just keep in mind this article isn't yours.

Deprod: Emily Benn

Hello, I have deprodded Emily Benn, as it has survived two deletion discussions and is therefore permanently ineligible for prod. If you wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD by following the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO, making sure to follow the directions for a third nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Emily Benn AfD

Are you going to finish that AfD? Or just leave it half-done for someone else to clean up? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'm in the middle of doing it, but I seem to have broken the template! Very happy for assistance to fix the link to the past AfDs. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard's article editing

Hi Bondegezou,

MDS are strictly mitochondrial deletion syndromes, while MDDS stands for "mitochondrial deletion and depletion syndromes". Since this case is strictly a MDS (not a deletion) I would revert to MDS, otherwise this needs a fix/explanation in the link to MDDS (which is actually wrong). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The legal ruling calls it an MDDS...? See here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OR?

I noticed you reverted my edit on the Jon Anderson page. I'm cool with that, but what do you mean by OR in your comment? Donny (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. "OR" is shorthand for "original research", as described at WP:OR. So, is that link for "alto tenor" based in the citation given, or is it an interpretation? Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation. Sorry. I guess I'll stop editing again. Donny (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are constantly changing. Some edits stick, some don't. If you feel strongly about a particular edit, you can discuss it on the relevant Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, but I feel like I'm doing the world a favor if I don't edit at all, so I'm going to stop for a while. Donny (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

I've nominated this article for deletion. As a contributor, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

UKIP Leadership Election 2017 Page

You have reversed my edit because it relied on UKIP Daily as a source, claiming that it is an unreliable source. But you have left the rest of the information on the page, including information about endorsements of other candidates, which relied on the same source, in place. Please note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to promote your political agenda. Either this is a reliable source of information re. endorsements of all candidates, or none of the candidates. Please do not undo my edits again without discussing the matter on the Talk page where I have started a discussion of this topic. Thank you. Tarian.liber (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Virgil Howe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Virgil Howe 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/Virgil Howe 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. Sionk (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for support on WikiProject STS!

Hi! Thanks for your support on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/STS. You seem like a really valuable person to have on the potential project/taskforce! I'd be happy to talk more about the project and how we should move the proposal forward/publicize it. 129.161.79.145 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment! Sorry for the confusion Mathmitch7 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help out as I can. I am sporadically active on Wikipedia and some of my research is in STS, although I come from a psychology background and am but a novice in the area. Bondegezou (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO

I genuinely think you might not be understanding what I'm doing at Talk:Carnism. WP:TPO refers to "users' comments", which I am not editing. You stated in an edit summary "It is standard for Talk pages to note past AfDs", but indeed, my editing of templates was simply making that more clear. You further stated, "it is against good practice to make contentious changes anywhere without consensus". Sure, but the only sign of this being "contentious" is that you don't seem to like it. Can you imagine an RfC about something so trivial? I won't push it further, but thought I should be clear to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@BDD: Fair enough. My wrong. I will not contest further if you wish to make the change again. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we could clear this up. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hypermobility syndrome edits

Thank you Bondegezou for the edits you have made on Hypermobility syndrome. I pared down some of what was written in "Diagnosis", but don't want to dismiss your changes, as you have made noticeable improvements. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, GeeBee60. Those were somewhat hurried, haphazard and WP:BOLD edits I made. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bondegezou. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Doctor Who + Yes

Thank you for quality articles around Doctor Who, progressive rock and many more topics, including Combat Rock (novel), Deborah Anderson and Juvenile osteoporosis, for service from 2005, - lecturer in health informatics, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1829 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hadiza Bawa-Garba case ‎

hi. Let me know if I can help further with this. I think you have done well to get it out and I would like to contribute. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Whispyhistory. Your input is much appreciated and I think we have a good start to an article now. I think what it needs now is more use of literature discussing the broader implications of the case. To avoid WP:OR concerns, we need material that explicitly references the case, but then put it into context. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way...

No, you do not get to fly-post Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I refuse to be the only person who deals with the resulting edit wars. You wanted to fix this mess, help fix it. Serendi^podous 09:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Serendipodous. I did notice activity on my Watchlist, but hadn't had a chance yet to jump in. Wikipedia articles often improve in stops and starts, which can be frustrating, but I think all efforts at improving a page add up in the long run. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There were no edit wars on the page until you decided it needed inclusion criteria. Now there are, they need to be enforced. You can't declare a law and then outsource its enforcement. Serendi^podous 12:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I suggested the page needed to meet existing community-wide rules. Another community-wide rule is WP:AGF. Maybe we could review that one before continuing the current conversation? Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't want to fight about this. But I did tell you that the reason I didn't want to change the article in the first place was because I didn't want to spend the rest of my natural life fighting off fanboy contributors. I do feel there's a tendency among Wikipedia editors to declare something wrong, tell people to fix it, and then let them deal with the consequences. Serendi^podous 14:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There is, sure. It is always easier to spot what is wrong than to fix it (or, indeed, go on fixing it)! And I'm as guilty of that as anyone.

If you don't want to fix the page and fight off fannish contributions, then don't. I'll get to them. Or someone else will. Many pages oscillate in content: slowly accreting fancruft, then having a periodic clean out.

I think the page is better than it was, so that is a Good Thing. If the current approach doesn't work in the longer term, then someone in the future will suggest an alternative. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mifepristone#Verifiability of "malformed fetus"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mifepristone#Verifiability of "malformed fetus". Noticed you reverted my change, and then noticed the text I changed wasn't verifiable anyway. Would appreciate your input! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 02:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tower Hamlets First successor parties

Hi Bondegezou - unsure if you picked up my reply on the talk page but I've restored the old page prior to my page move to address the concerns you raised. That means there's a Tower Hamlets Independent Group, People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets and a Tower Hamlets First page. I've offered some more detailed suggestions in the talk page, but I thought I'd let you know that all three exist as separate articles now. I personally feel that PATH is automatically notable because it's a registered UK political party with councillors, whereas THIG is notable because of sustained and in depth coverage (in spite of not being an actual political party). Because of the slightly chaotic nature of post-THF politics in the borough I was wondering whether it'd be better to discuss groupings like these in a more general article, rather than having one page for each. I'm still mystified by Lutfur Rahman's current activities in the borough and I'm unsure where his political campaigning fits in, not to mention the fact that far-left, Bangladeshi community and Islamist groups all seem to have significant clout in the area that warrants coverage somewhere on Wikipedia. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Exergaming

Hello,

I removed the open access journal I cited in the paragraph I added. Results are mentioned based on a doctoral thesis and I received no finances to promote this.

Best

Original paragraph: A psycho-biophysical evaluation of sport exergames explored whether they could be used for training and practicing real sports. The results showed that sport exergames might be useful in knowledge transfer due to the increased motivation. However, they may not be as useful as traditional instructions because the current motion sensors may not be able to detect delicate movements of real sport. Therefore, coaches have to clearly define why and how they want to use sport exergames in their practice. Another study also suggests that better real-sport performance may not necessarily transfer into better sport exergame performance because even after a short exposure to the game, players tend to change their movement patterns in a way that is enough to win the game. This phenomenon was also shown by analyzing muscle activation while playing with different velocities. Results showed that playing at higher velocities results in the activation of certain muscles that are necessary for winning the game. This is why playing sport exergames may not be useful for training real sports. As exergames were considered as low to moderate activities, previous research only considered aerobic pathway for measuring energy expenditure during exergaming. However, a recent study showed that anaerobic pathway accounts for 8.9 ± 5.6% of total energy expenditure while exergaming. The results also suggested that short-term increase in physiological parameters might happen at the beginning of the gameplay and due to unfamiliarity of players.

Qwertyuiop71944, thank you for your message, but it would be more helpful to post this to Talk:Exergaming rather than here. Your work looks very interesting. However, you should look at WP:MEDRS with guides what references are considered appropriate for medical claims. The MEDRS policy asks for reviews rather than primary studies, as you are posting. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Revert

Please don't restore the comment I removed from Talk:Chloe Alper; the comment is attempting to connect a real world person to a Wikipedia account and is borderline WP:OUTING. It is an attack on a specific editor that serves no purpose to the page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but you should explain this in your edit summary and follow WP:MINOR as to when it is appropriate to mark an edit as minor. Without an explanation and with the edit wrongly marked as minor, I could not know your reasoning. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Duwayne Brooks

Dear User, Please stop editing the page of Mr Duwayne Brooks OBE. He is not in need of your assistance. Thank you. 86.129.201.225 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing dispute on Lewisham East by-election, 2018

Any views on whether to take this to meditation or possibly DRN? It seems like quite a lot of the contentious points will be rendered moot by the publication of the SOPN, but the section headings issue will continue to rumble on irrespective of how much secondary coverage Labour gets and how little may be afforded to other parties. I'm not entirely sure of the value in continuing to force discussion if people are insistent on their interpretation of WP:MOS and WP:UNDUE and taking us collectively into violating the three revert rule. I'm not tremendously well versed in the nuances of Wikipedia guidelines or consensus building practices, so let me know if there's something obvious I'm missing here. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

By-election articles are often contentious and the situation moves to fast for many of the consensus building mechanisms. I think you're right that a lot changes with the SOPN and RS coverage will also shift, allowing content to develop. Personally, I'd just keep going as we are, making cases on Talk, reverting edits as appears appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) 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/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) 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. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Green Endorsement question

In 2016 you spoke on the talk page for the Green Leadership article about Endorsement listing. I thought you would like to know I have asked the same question on the talk page for the 2018 version of the article. Thanks, Digestive Biscuit (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pauline Pearce

I see you made some edits to Pauline Pearce or Heroine of Hackney in the past. I have created a biographical article on Pearce before I realised her previous article as Heroine of Hackney was closed (although prior to her political career, and with an agreement to merge it into 2011 England riots). Would be grateful if you could please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 17, Pauline Pearce. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Conservative party polling

Perhaps the Conservative Home polling could be included. So far no consensus has been reached as the topic hasn't been discussed. Maybe now we can start to build a consensus on the issue. Many thanks.TP69 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Un-questionably helpful

Thank you for your attempts to reach consensus on List of questionable diseases. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

was in King Crimson Show Munich 16.7. - breathtaking! Big Progrock-Fan too... Burgenseite (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankit Love

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MB190417 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Squire. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

What is wrong with you ? That's a standard note used throughout the project - FlightTime (open channel) 14:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest, o FlightTime, that you may be over-reacting here. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Wording_of_warning_re:_instrument_field_in_infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 11)

Are we still not allowed to use the BBC as a source for Doctor Who? Such as this one, announcing the premiere title and airdate? -- Alex^TW 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I take it you are asking rhetorically. We are, of course, allowed to. For less straightforward information, we should definitely prefer secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. When I said that BBC could say that the series will be airing October 14, and we would be required to take that for its word, you replied that that would be acting contrary to Wikipedia policy. Even when I confirmed that I will most certainly be sticking to the BBC as the preferred source for material on a show they make, broadcast and sell, as I consider them the only official source, you said that it would appear to me that you will be acting in violation of community agreed standards. That was about the discussion concerning the air date. Seems a bit conflicting. -- Alex^TW 23:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to your choice of citation in this context. If there is a particular editing dispute you would like to discuss, feel free to raise it. On the general point, community agreed policy is clear that we do not take the maker of a thing as the "preferred source" for information about that thing: see WP:V and WP:COI. However, in context, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY do allow us to cite the maker of a thing when it is saying something unexceptional, as is the case here. WP:RS/N would be a more appropriate place to discuss specific examples than my Talk page as it would attract the attention of more editors. Bondegezou (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So, the BBC can indeed be used as a source in this case, when you said it couldn't in the discussion. Just wanted to clear things up. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My concern at the time was your comment about using the BBC as "the preferred source", which is clearly against policy. Some use of the BBC as a source is certainly allowed, as per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. I have reviewed the discussion from which you quoted above at Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_11)#October_2018 and I never said that the BBC couldn't be used as a source, just that, "WP:independent, WP:secondary sources are preferred over primary sources." I am happy to discuss any specific editing choices, if you would so like to, but outwith specific cases, I suggest the guidance I have already referred to lays everything out more clearly that I can. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Explanation

I'm actually not reverting you just to edit war. Terrorism has a standard definition -- violence done for political objectives. Or to use one from wiki, Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). The details of this will be disputed but what is usually not is that the motive has to be political (Al Qaeda -- to coerce the "paper tiger", Palestinian -- to draw world attention to their aspirations , historical Armenian -- same as above essentially , Princip -- to destabilize Austria on orders from the Black Hand, et cetera). Where a clear political motive is lacking, traditionally you would use other terms (in Western contexts, hate crime would be typical -- you do not call Dylann Roof's rampage against a black church terrorism, nor school bombings). As is discussed elsewhere on wiki, Balkan factions have a habit of using the word terrorism as a ploy to delegitimize the other side -- Serbs do this with Albanians, Albanians do it with Serbs, ditto Bosniaks, Croats, you name it. But it only makes it terrorism if it fits the definition. In 2001, the tables were turning against the Serbs in favor of the Albanians (I hate to talk this way, but the fact is that that is how literally everyone on the ground saw it). Podujevo had been the site of earlier Serb massacres of Albanians (see Podujevo massacre) -- both Serbs and Albanians traditionally have observed traditions of blood revenge whereby your manhood is lost if you resort exclusively to others, and on top of that this is in a background of widespread bilateral violence between civilians not affiliated with military units (blurring the combatant-civilian line). If you actually have a source describing it as much, I am fine with adding it, but we cannot go with either one UN official or the Serbian government, nor out of domain pieces, nor "because bombs". --Calthinus (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, during an editing dispute, it is polite to leave articles as they were before the dispute. This is the basis of WP:BRD. During a discussion, you made a Bold edit to Podujevo bus bombing, which I Reverted, intending to continue the Discussion. However, you then returned your desired edit before the discussion has concluded.

I find this makes it to difficult to progress the discussion.

I have provided multiple RS. Oddly, you reject every RS provided for a different reason. This does not convince that you are actually interested in co-operatively working on this.

Your thesis above is interesting, but WP:OR and thus cannot be the basis for a decision.

I feel that sticking to basic Wikipedia principles is generally the best way to resolve differences. Bondegezou (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

Hi. I'm at a loss as to how to handle the Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election talk page. I belatedly reported the two editors that identified themselves as the blocked User:Torygreen84 to SPI, and they've been blocked. But there're a lot of single-purpose and single-use IPs commenting as well which could be supposed to be the same blocked editor. I've not engaged with any of the arguments presented on the basis of starving attention from someone who I identifies as (or I suspect the possibility of being) a user who's forfeited their right to take part in these discussions. The page itself is now semi-protected, which is why the IP activity is on the Talk page rather than on the main article. I'd appreciate a pointer as to how you (as the other contributor in the Talk page discussion and as a more experienced editor) think I could most productively engage with the issue. Many thanks. Ralbegen (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: I also wondered if it's the same person. I think sometimes you try to calmly and clearly lay out your reasoning and politely listen and consider alternate views... and sometimes you just ignore it. If you think a single-use IP is just the same person again, I suggest ignoring them. If you think it's a new person, talk to them. If it is the same person and they start getting more abusive, then (briefly) say you think it's the same person on the Talk page to flag the issue up to passing editors. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate it. Ralbegen (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Bondegezou, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invited you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Returned members

I've not done them all, I've had to leave the house, but it's a start. They're not easy to edit, feel like I'm getting an introductory course in coding! doktorb _words^deeds 14:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are some fiendish tables. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bare urls

I appreciate your efforts in adding a lot of content to The Independent Group but please, please, stop adding bare urls. Provelt is a very easy tool to install and for using to create references. Headhitter (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Blaiklock

I do not understand why you continue to re-edit my edits. It seems strange to me that the information I provided is sourced as accurate yet you wish to airbrush this information? Can you explain your continuing actions? Are you claiming that Hope Not Hate did not investigate Catherine Blaiklock? Are you claiming that, despite the evidence provided within the Hope Not Hate investigation, that the investigation is somehow bogus? To remove factual information from Wikipedia subverts the very nature of the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.164.133 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article normally has a brief opening section (known as the lede) of one or a few paragraphs summarising what the article is about. Then there is the main text of the article that goes into more detail. Your contribution may be appropriate in the main part of the article, but is overkill for the opening section.

By the way, if you continue to WP:EDITWAR over this, you will be blocked from editing. You should discuss this at Talk:Catherine Blaiklock. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask who you are, or what role you believe you hold, to determine what the word count is in what you describe as a "lede"? The additional comments made are relevant to the sentence in question. Why are you deleting this factual information? It feels less like an edit re: appropriatenes but one of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.164.133 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I am just an editor. Wikipedia has a very flat hierarchy. WP:LEDE has recommendations on how much detail goes in the lede. Who did the investigation of Blaiklock seems like unnecessary detail in a lede to me. That detail can go in the main text. The facts of the case are covered in the main text, so nothing is being censored. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

Do you have any sense of where I might take this conversation next? I still feel strongly that a change needs to be made, but I'm not sure WikiProject Songs is the right space for getting anything done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. You could try looking at the Categories for Deletion discussions. They're full of editors with lots of categorising experience. Maybe one of those editors will have a fresh idea. Bondegezou (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Where did you move my content to?

Your edit summary says that you moved it out of lead.. but to where? It's a good piece of info. Ping me when u answer IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: It's at 2019_Israeli_legislative_election#Electoral_system. That sort of section is where details of voting procedures go usually. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dog Bite 3PO

I see you removed the Dog Bite 3PO with the summary "answered". Are you answering it? I ask because I want to confirm that you don't think I'm answering it because I had specifically suggested it be relisted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I inputted at the Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you just decimate the Fatal dog attack page?

What in the world? The original article Fatal dog attacks in the United States was a list of deaths from the 1800s to current day, with six studies on top of it. I identified several dozen missing fatalities, added those and the list got so long that someone spun off the pre-2000 deaths into another article (List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000)). Then the list continued to grow and someone spun off the 2000-2009 deaths into List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s). I then expanded the list of studies and PearlSt82 is advocating removing them; you are advocating the position to remove ALL of the studies except the one remaining "study of a study". Now by removing the 2010-2019 fatalities, the ONLY THING LEFT will be a single study. What was your thinking on this? Nomopbs (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: The page was created on October 23, 2009 [11] as a list of fatalities. Please respond with a good reason why you would want to remove (without any discussion or explanation) the information that has been there for ten years and was the original purpose of the page? If no answer, I will revert your edits. Nomopbs (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved information from one page to another. I have not decimated or removed anything. It doesn't make much sense, I suggest, to have some of the list of attacks in a separate article and some in the main article. Why not have a list article (or 2 list articles) and an article about the issue.

As for WP:MEDRS, I think you can do a good article of a sensible length while still respecting the guidance. Bondegezou (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment

The context offered by those sources is not terrorism (but civil war and afterward repression). If you are interested in expanding the entry without entering into WP:NOR, Juan Avilés Farré is among the foremost scholars dealing with terrorism in Spain from an holistic understanding of the topic. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 UK Euro Elections

I have left a note in the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom on what I had in mind regarding having more info about the UK regions, I forgot to say I have no objection to having more info about the regional candidates. Many thanks (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC))

Next Tory leadership election

I've submitted a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84 that you might be interested in. Ralbegen (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: so, what happened with Okeeffemarc's account? A hack? Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Because they contacted me by email, I've tried to only post what's been necessary to deal with sockpuppet disruption... I've asked them to post about it publicly, because it would give a clearer evidence trail from past issues to future issues. Ralbegen (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be useful to collapse discussion driven by Okeeffemarc on the Talk page, as I've done for earlier Torygreen-led discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It definitely would be useful, but I feel like we'd have to wait for public confirmation from Okeeffemarc, or for them to strike the comments made using their account? Ralbegen (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, OK. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election

Oh dear...I misread this as "Umunna not a Lib Dem" rather than "Umunna now a Lib Dem", and even went searching for a source to prove that he'd become one. :) This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

I see that you (and other editors) seem to be currently involved in an edit war over the interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Since the edit war has expanded to multiple articles (1, 2, 3, 4 just to name a few), I suggest you all calm down and have a talk about it. After all, you are surely aware of WP:CONSENSUS and the fact that the MOS guidelines are nothing more than simple "guidelines".

As to the direct matter of "flags in election infoboxes", that seems to have been discussed multiple times previously on the relevant talk page, see for example Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_1#Overuse_of_flags_in_election_templates; Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_3#Flags_usage_in_Template_National_elections; Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_4#Template:Slovenian_elections; and many others. Needless to say, these discussion are not unanimous and this might be a case were applying MOS guidelines as if they were rule of law might not be the most appropriate course of action. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to past discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Was lovely to see you at the UCL wikithon - thanks for coming by! It would be lovely to have a proper catch-up soon when I'm not super dazed with event-stuff! Zeromonk (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zeromonk: Lovely to see you too. Yes, let's. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling - Johnson

That works Bondegezou. Neatly squaring the circle as usual!

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Bondegezou/Archive 2,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nom

Hello! Thanks for your help with this article. I was hoping you might kindly take a look at the FA review if you have time. I understand you may not with your country having such fascinating politics to write about. With many kind thanks. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL. For more boring reasons, I'm quite busy at present, but will try and input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Bondegezou/Archive 2,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Caroline Deys has been accepted

Caroline Deys, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Thank you for trying to appeal for calm, but I disagree with your assessment that there is no rush. This is currently front page news on the BBC. Siobhan Benita is commonly seen as the 2nd place candidate (she was second place in gambling odds until earlier today in any case). The current form of the article gives misleading information, rather than just mirroring what is shown in primary sources. The 3RR rule, as it is being applied here, gives advantage on current issues to whoever gets to it first, even if their version differs from primary sources. CAWyatt (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we take this discussion to the Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marathon world record progression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Not worthy of you

From what I have seen, you usually conduct yourself very well in discussion on Wikipedia. You fell below that standard today. Shame. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, I don't know what you are upset about...? Bondegezou (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Silly cheap personalised sarcasm in 2019 election discussion about the 326 figure. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I intended no sarcasm. It is a basic concept of Wikipedia that we go with what reliable sources say over any editor's personal views: you, me, any of us. That's how Wikipedia works. No attack or criticism of you is intended. We all are subservient to Wikipedia rules and what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD after PROD considered bad style

Hi Bondegezou, I saw that you repeatedly nominated articles for deletion at AfD after unsuccessful attempts to PROD them. Please note that this is considered bad style or even rude by many Wikipedians. Either PROD them or AfD them, but not both. PROD is only for articles which can be reasonably assumed to be uncontroversial deletions. So, if your PROD attempt failed it can mean one of two things: The nominator's judgement regarding deletions is off, or the nominator tried to get something deleted silently out of bad motives. Assuming the better case, someone who's judgement on an article has just proven to be off, should not nominate the article by other means because nominating articles for deletion requires a very good judgement, and still nominating an article twice comes over as very forceful. So, choose carefully the process before nominating an article, and if your PROD fails, leave it to others to nominate it for deletion through other means. Hope it helps. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with taking a contested PROD to AfD. The purpose of PROD is to reduce workload at AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:PROD is a shortcut meant only for articles where no opposition to deletion is expected at all, that is which are uncontroversial. This is thin ice, because at least the good faith contributors to an article can most likely be considered in opposition to deletion. If, by his/her best judgement, an editor cannot be sure that noone will object the attempt to PROD an article, then PROD is not to be used - use AfD instead. Consequently, in an ideal world, PRODs should (almost) never be contested. If they still are (and not counting occurances of vandalism or junk), it means that the nominator's judgement was wrong (that is, s/he made a mistake and very likely didn't do all of the homework required WP:BEFORE any nomination - which also shows many alternatives to deletion). An editor, who's judgement has just proven to be wrong, should strive to improve his/her judgement first instead of risking to make even more mistakes by carrying out further controversial edits in succession, including ones, which are potentially harmful like nominating articles for deletion. To always be cautious and acting with responsibility is a core discipline while editing in a community project which depends on the good judgement of people. Nominating an article for AfD after an unsuccessful PROD by the same editor indicates that someone wants to get rid of an article by all means and (unless in cases of vandalism or junk) this is often a sign of people with a "my way or no way" attitude. I don't think you deserve to be put into that category, that's why I wrote my comment.

So, if you run into this situation again after you unsuccessfully PRODed an article, please consider to trust the community (more) and leave it to someone else to pick up an article for AfD sooner or later if it really deserves to be deleted. (Exception: Vandalism or obvious junk.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Consociationalism

If convenient, could you keep an eye on Consociationalism (power sharing) please. An IP editor is disrupting and I have already reverted twice. Tyvm. --Red King (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rob Parker

I am in the process of adding content to this page and, by editing it in the meantime, you have created an edit conflict. If you're going to nominate something for deletion and you see that a major contributor is attempting to improve the article, can you at least give them time to do so. I agree that the material I added was too long, but I was going to copy-edit and remove some of the detail, a perfectly reasonable process of editing a page like this (and I disagree that everything you removed was extraneous). —Noswall59 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

@Noswall59: I'm happy to discuss specifics at Talk:Rob_Parker_(councillor). I don't have any way of knowing whether you are making one edit or planning to make more. You can use the Template:Under construction to alert other users if you are planning to do a lot of work on an article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric Syddique

I have reorganised and added some stuff to Eric Syddique and removed your proposal for deletion. See the article's talk page. -- Alarics (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBondegezouたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Palmer

Thanks for your help at Phil Palmer. I was chasing an IP who added hundreds of collaboration lists to articles. I checked many of them and most are either not sourced on the target article, or not even mentioned. Quite a mess. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I follow Palmer's musical career a bit and the list here looks accurate. I'm going through adding some citations, some to CD liner notes when I own the albums. I've not come across anything that looks wrong, but I'm only partway through. Bondegezou (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for contributing vital information about the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)! Timwi (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sturgeon

Hi. Could you please check out the history of the Nicola Sturgeon article and consider 1) Listing the IP at WP:AIV, and 2) possibly requesting protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus error

I noticed a change you made on the Coronavirus wikipedia page stating that the new name was SARS-CoV-2; but the name officially given by WHO is COVID-19 which stands for Coronavirus Disease and the year it was discovered. Gantelope78 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gantelope78: ah, no. The disease is called Covid-19. The virus is called SARS-CoV-2. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I was reading MERS and SARS as the diseases instead of viral types. Thank you for clarification :) Gantelope78 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

fails MEDRS: report something when there's a trial result - the mere fact of a trial should not be reported

You recently deleted the section from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease page regarding management with lopinavir/ritonavir and referencing MEDRS. As specified in the text this treatment is experiential but is undergoing clinical trials, is official government suggested treatment in China, has been used in multiple other countries and can now be claimed for legally by health insurance in some countries. Happy to modify how it is discussed but it seems important that it is a topic in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFineTruthComb (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss this on the article's Talk page, but we have to follow WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus disease 2019

I don't see why you think reference to ClinicalTrials.gov is unhelpful and have restored the reference to this authoritative source. --Zeamays (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Answered on relevant Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

the page

I was planning on spending the evening going through the article to summarise, but as you probably noticed I couldn't even really get through the lead let alone beyond what I've been working on the whole time. Please keep it up re WP:MEDRS and particularly WP:MEDMOS considering the Nigerian spread --Almaty (talk)

COVID 19 navbox RfC

I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. You voiced an opinion about this voiced about a week ago, so please feel free to restate your opinion at Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace.  Bait30  ^Talk? 05:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?

Hi Bondegezou, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for answering my questions for the WikiProject Report! I really appreciate it, and I hope you also had a good time answering. Happy editing! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sade (band)

Why do you think Sade (band) is a jazz band? This is a serious question, not rhetorical or otherwise figurative, sarcastic, etc. Thanks. Is it something you read, heard, saw?
Vmavanti (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Epistemology on Wikipedia is straightforward. What do reliable sources say? We have reliable sources that call Sade jazz. QED. Bondegezou (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

False.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the sources lately, but the relevant Talk page is available if you want to re-open the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on the Talk page if you want to take a look. I don't believe you ever addressed the substance of my arguments. It looks like I simply walked away. Based on what I've read, I haven't changed my mind. Classifying Sade as jazz is what baseball players call an unforced error.Vmavanti (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I have time, I will re-engage in the conversation there. Bit busy at the moment with real life work. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Flag matters

Hi Bondegezou! In light of the latest flag conversation on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, I'm reminded that you have previously said you might start an infobox-wide RFC on the flag parameter. Is that something you're still minded to put forward? I don't mean to imply any pressure or necessary haste, but it could be nice to at some point have one less piece of infobox trivia that provokes unproductive arguments... Ralbegen (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ralbegen. I was meaning to. I haven't got round to it and have been too busy since the COVID-19 pandemic started. Happy for someone else to start it, or I will, eventually, get round to it at some point!

I was wondering how best to phrase it. One could do "remove the field (and therefore the flags)" versus "not". But I wondered if it would be useful to have a separate sub-discussion about sub-national elections: I've seen English county elections with a UK flag, an England flag or a county crest. So, the options there could be no flag, or only the national flag (as per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG), or a sub-national flag/icon. The argument against sub-national flags is stronger given specific wording in MOS:FLAG, but maybe this is just complicating things... Hmmm... I think it's probably just complicating things unnecessarily... Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, cool, glad to see it's still coming up. For what it's worth, I think a binary question of the status quo vs removing the field is probably the way to go. MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG already accounts for most of the subnational cases, so if consensus is to keep the field then the tools to argue against subnational flags are already there. As a compromise, I'm not sure that a sovereign-only policy would especially help and might just invite more arguments on e.g. Scottish election talk pages. Ralbegen (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Anne Frank RfC

Hey, the RfC is so bogged down with discussions about the gayness, and what few discussions there are about WEIGHT are mostly declarative statements either way.  Do you think we can link to the RfC at WP:NPOVN per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC, or are we just stuck with the existing notice at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NPOVN seems appropriate, but surely the RfC can be advertised more broadly than just under Biographies. Bondegezou (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at the WikiProjects it's in on the article Talk page for inspiration. Bondegezou (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hi, How is a statement by a politician on their own twitter account, not a reliable source? Littlemonday (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Littlemonday. Wikipedia puts more value on independent, secondary, reliable sources than on a Twitter account, which is a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY). We can use primary sources in some situations, but the community agreed on a standard for how to cover endorsements described at WP:ENDORSERFC. This requires independent coverage of an endorsement and excludes someone tweeting their views. It's not that we doubt that this is the person's view: it's that we doubt whether it is a notable endorsement if no-one talks about it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for your helpful contributions to Deborah Anderson, and to the newly improved page Aroused (film)! What do you think of the article, Aroused (film)? Right cite (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What are your thoughts?

What are your thoughts on my efforts recently to improve the page you created, Deborah Anderson? Perhaps you could chip in at Talk:Deborah Anderson with your thoughts? Do you think the intro could be expanded a bit more? Right cite (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: Looks good! I'll add more material as I find it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems ridiculous, do you agree?

It seems a real shame that two users have imposed their will on the List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain page, insisting that this RfC: Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria applies to ALL pages that list terrorist events. I'm really not convinced this should be the case. I've had to delete dozens of clearly valid terrorist attacks on the page because they don't strictly adhere to the rules that every entry must 'be notable (have its own article' and be stated as terrorism by a consensus of reliable sources. Huge amounts of obvious terrorist attacks on the page, i.e. by the IRA, don't fulfil this bizarre criteria, despite obviously belonging on the page. It's really sad and means that a huge amount of that article has been desecrated. You might remember that the applicability of the RfC to the List of terrorist incidents in London article was debated by you here: talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Suffragettes. I really don't think that the criteria for the List of terrorist incidents page should be the same as more detailed lists of terrorist incidents in more specific locations. I'm not actually convinced that it is clear that the List of terrorist incidents criteria should apply to these articles at all, it's not been clarified or settled at all. What do you think of these bizarre rules? Delayed Laugh (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to go to the relevant Talk page and discuss the matter there. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On a break

Due to the pressures of work and some minor health problems, I'm on a semi-wiki-break. Apologies to any ongoing activity/discussions I've left in the lurch. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Socialist Party

Hi Bondegezou. I understand the reason why you reverted my edit on this page. However, while third-party sources are preferable, they are not mandatory. The problem is the party is such a small political party it receives very little third-party coverage, so it is very difficult to provide third-party sources for their views. Therefore, I think with this in mind first-party sources should be accepted as an exception to this general preferability. There are some third-party sources that mention the party's call for a National Care Service but they are comment, opinion and letter pieces on third party sources (which I will list below) that aren't generally regarded as acceptable use as citations for claims. Outside of this I can't find any other coverage on the matter. The party is promoting this as one of their key/major policies for the next set of elections this year and would be a significant update to include this new information on the page amongst a lot of quite old information. I respectfully ask if you can please restore this information with the prior sources I used and/or with those I will list below. All the best.

• https://www.thenational.scot/news/18944026.scandal-underpaid-care-home-workers-predates-coronavirus/
  
• https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18956078.compelling-argument-free-national-care-service/
  
• https://www.thenational.scot/news/18600513.elderly-care-profit-scandal-ended/
  
• https://www.thenational.scot/news/18472750.colin-fox-scotland-needs-national-care-service/

Helper201 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Two thoughts, Helper201. If there's little third-party coverage of something, then perhaps there is little need for Wikipedia to cover it.

But if you feel there is good reason to cover this topic, why don't you try to write some text that uses a mix of primary sources and the additional citations you list above? While not ideal, that would be better than just using primary sources alone. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eukaryota template

Hello. I apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask you a favor. I strongly support your proposal regarding extinct incertae sedis taxa in the template Eukaryota. I believe the red links might be kept for informative purposes, but Charnia (or Rangeomorpha) should be replaced with Ediacaran biota as you suggested. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pinoczet. It would perhaps be useful if you made that comment at Template_talk:Eukaryota#Extinct_incertae_sedis and then we can go see how things go from there. Bondegezou (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Pinoczet (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, I have just noticed that there is one more redirect page to the article Ediacaran biota: Vendobiont. Perhaps it might be a good idea to use the term Vendobionts (similarly to Acritarchs)? Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pinoczet: That sounds like a good idea and no-one has made any other suggestions at Template_talk:Eukaryota#Extinct_incertae_sedis. Why don't you make that edit yourself? Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

London mayoral election article

Hey Bondegezou, I had a sixth sense about someone editing at the same time as me haha! There was en edit conflict with you, but I'd added the same Telegraph source so I accepted your version, tweaked mine, then accepted mine. Hope this is all okay. doktorb _words^deeds 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bold

As you boldly deleted [12] Yvonne Hartman from List of Doctor Who villains, I wondered whether you could also boldly advise on the broken Yvonne Hartman redirect it caused. I have no idea where this redirect should point to but hopefully you are more familiar with the topic. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed to re-direct to Torchwood Institute. Perhaps it should be taken to WP:RFD? Bondegezou (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

your username isn't so bad yourself :D

Camdoodlebop (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor problems

Hey Bondegezou. I am currently a bit concerned about an editor over at the Hartlepool by-election article. Take a look at this edit for example [13] Some of the language and accusations he's typing in article space and edit summaries is sending all sorts of klaxons into overdrive. I'll try to dampen down what I can but clearly things might get a bit 'on eggshells' with him. doktorb _words^deeds 05:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Alba Party

I am a little concerned re certain idealogies being inserted into the infobox. Appreciate they are being reverted. If you feel this is getting out of hand, ping me and I'll semi protect the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if the vandalism continues or dies down, I guess. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hartlepool By Election

I put Samantha lee into the box as an independant with links to her Facebook campaign page and also her endorsement by Wiki_Ballot, I am the person who started Wiki_Ballot so declare an interest there, The Table is not user freindly to new editors and in a By Election with a number of independent candidates could I ask that other editors observe wikipedia's policies to;Be polite, and welcoming to new users− Assume good faith − Avoid personal attacks − For disputes, seek dispute resolution Glad to see Bondegezou here to keep an eye on things. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Bitter Giant changed the edit citing vandalism, the change was not vandalism and I wish to re instate.Bondegezou could you please take a look?Thankyou RogerGLewis (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@RogerGLewis: BitterGiant has clarified that they were not saying the Samantha Lee edits were vandalism. I agree with you that tables are not user friendly. However, links to a Facebook campaign page or an endorsement by Wiki_Ballot do not appear to meet standard Wikipedia policy: I suggest you read WP:RS on this topic. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification RogerGLewis (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Airdrie and Shotts

Hey Bg. I have a sneaking suspicion that Labour and SNP supporters have cottoned on how to edit candidate biogs ;) If there are any more back and forths I'll step in to help out. doktorb _words^deeds 10:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Lots of new SPAs editing by-election articles to promote or hide specific information? I will assume good faith, but very much welcome additional help. :-) Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Alba Party Citations

Just a question about these and their necessity. When I've checked other political parties in Scotland (probably also elsewhere too) for councillors there are no citations at all. So I just wonder if there is any need here for the Alba party. To be honest (as I say on the Alba party Talk), I think a simple statement about councillors would be preferable to the ridiculousness that there is right now. Just my thoughts. Psychomike (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There should be a citation for every claim: that's basic Wikipedia policy. We say 11 councillors, all of whom ultimately came from the SNP. I don't see a way of supporting that without all those citations. If you can find something that does the job with just one citation, let's definitely switch to that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I found the source other entries use: http://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/ - In particular, changes seem to be recorded here: http://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/changes.php - so it's possible to sort by party - and then you can see there are 11 councillors. I'd suggest that the info about Aberdeen having 3 and North Lanakshire having 2 is not really relevant, and can be found on those council pages if anyone is interested. What do you think? Psychomike (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I made the change. Now I await the criticisms. I hope it is a solution that "fits", though. Psychomike (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

deletion at Heavy Woollen District Independents

You deleted See also that I added so that users of screen readers would have it read out to them; is this wrong in your opinion, also considering there was no TOC?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rocknrollmancer. Wikipedia has community-wide guidance on this at MOS:NOTSEEALSO that we are meant to follow. You could try asking at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout? Bondegezou (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

One wonders when this guideline was established; I've already had some interactions at Village Pump technical re screen readers, just trying to be appreciative of the technology , as I know of a young lady who lost her partial sight (I don't interact with her).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's a longstanding part of the WP:MOS. Certainly screen reader issues are important and I claim zero knowledge of the technicalities there. If there is a generic problem with the current MOS, then the right approach is a discussion at some broad community level. Bondegezou (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack Polanski article

Hello, please can you take up your views on the Zack Polanski article on the talk page, rather than reverting edits I made without explanation. I am concerned that your edits violate WP:BLP due to deadnaming the subject in a way that could cause harm and has no relevance to WP:N. --Jwslubbock (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jwslubbock, I am already participating in discussion at that Talk page. Let's keep all the discussion there. Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Glen Tullman

Hi Bondegezou. I was wondering if you had a minute to review some edits I suggested at Talk:Glen Tullman, a page about a digital health entrepreneur. It seemed potentially aligned with some of your interests. MelissaCarson (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou. Thanks for reviewing the changes I proposed and implementing the corrected date of birth and location information. Can you clarify whether you oppose the addition of his early career interests in journalism and magic, or did you just only want to review factual errors? MelissaCarson (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear MelissaCarson, I felt the date of birth issue was pressing under WP:BLPDOB, but, sorry, I don't particularly have an interest in the article and have no opinion either way on the other suggested edit. Perhaps you could contact a relevant WikiProject? Bondegezou (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Brian Rose

So as not to template you, I just wanted to leave a simple note about edit warring. You will need consensus and it does not exist. Please refrain from implementing challenged content until you are able to obtain such. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If it helps speed things along, I would still suggest to create a page for the podcast. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding yet another template warning but wanted to make sure you are aware. Get consensus per WP:ONUS. Edit warring will be reported next time it happens. You have been asked about these edits numerous times and failed to respond in at least six months. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We have a longstanding disagreement about some wording. With respect to that disagreement, the article is, I believe, in the form you were arguing for, so I am unclear what you are complaining about. My apologies for not progressing the RfC: I will try to get to that.

You haven't edited the article for some time either. You made some new edits today: I reverted some of them. That is not edit-warring, it's WP:BRD. You have now re-imposed your edits and are making threats. I would suggest we will progress with improving the article better with a different approach, one based on WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I havent edited it in a while as I was WP:AGF by allowing you to respond. You will see the request I made numerous times with regards to the comment about his opponents objecting to his podcast. I surely hope you are not accusing me of NOT assuming good faith. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies again for not progressing the RfC idea. My focus is on improving articles and I endeavour to always assume good faith. Bondegezou (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Your focus is my focus as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone else has made an accusation of COI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doxxing and Talk:Zack_Polanski#Conflict_of_Interest, DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DuncanHill. I can see whatever happened was all revdeleted. Shall I presume the matter is all in hand? Or let me know if I can do anything. I will continue to keep an eye on the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think all is in hand, Black Kite dealt with the revdels. DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carol Ibe has been accepted

Carol Ibe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Laplorfill (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Mirage (British band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mirage (British band) 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/Mirage (British band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Pipsally (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Southend West by-election

Hey, Bondegezou. In 2021 Southend West by-election#Candidates, you wrote "and then Labour announced [...]" I read the sources present and don't believe any of them discuss which party – Lib Dems or Labour – announced this first. I've therefore taken that bit of chronology out of the sentence. However, if I'm mistaken or if there's another reliable source that states this, please correct me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Southend West

Hey x

I'm not sure if the British Freedom Party is standing. They're not on the Register ( http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP889). "Britain First" are, again, so it could be them. Might be a reporting error doktorb _words^deeds 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doktorbuk, hope you are well. I think they are not on the Register. That would imply Fransen would be listed as an independent. I think it is still accurate to say she is standing as a British Freedom Party candidate, even if she can't say that on the ballot paper. The BFP still exist and are acting collectively to ensure she is a candidate. We can follow the language of the citation given, perhaps adding a footnote to explain that the party is not registered? Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you on about?

Give me one example of a POV edit by me in that article. Not on the talk page where opinions are freely allowable but in the actual article. You are obviously as bad as DeFacto. Keep your pedantic attitude to yourself. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

WP:SUMMARYNO, and perhaps WP:BURDEN too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

What are you on about, reverting changing "the band were" to "the band was"? "Band" is a singular noun. That's the least-controversial edit in WP history. -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Kicking222, I think you'll find that was/were wars are among the most controversial edits in WP history! Anyway, the policies relevant here are WP:ENGVAR and MOS:PLURALS. In British English, "band" is a collective noun and takes the plural. Articles that are in British English, as in this case, should remain in British English. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

God, this is why I never edit WP anymore. Not you- you're fine- but the endless arcane policies and nonsensical rules. -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, my initial message sounds so petty and silly, and I apologize. I mean, I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but that's clearly not on you. -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Not me"

I think that the "Not me" illustration is very imaginative. I myself have a namesake, as far as I know not a relative, who is a professor emeritus here in the U.S. (Except for our middle initials: Mine is A., his is S.) Tesseract12 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

yes solo projects

upon d second and third reading, i see your point. the band has such a convoluted history, at first i thought a section specifically for solo endeavors would be correct. i can see now that including them only in a separate heading would not serve to explain this convolution.

journey to the center was the first from the classic lineup, and the in-body acknowledgement makes this more clear.

thank you

SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A question

Please feel free to ignore this if you feel it is too personal. I noticed that the obituaries which recounted all of Dr. Deys's accomplishments mentioned one grandson. Is he your son, or your nephew? (As for myself, I never had children, nieces or nephews.) Tesseract12 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Classic British rock

This is not exactly about progressive rock, but I was wondering what you or anybody else here might think about it. The other day I was remembering the group Herman's Hermits. When they were popular, a friend pointed out to me that they sang in an "exaggerated" British accent, apparently because that was what American fans liked to hear at that time. For instance, in the song "I'm Henry the Eighth, I Am", the line "every one was a Henry, Henry" was sung as "every one was an Ennery, Ennery". My friend said that after all, the Beatles did not sound like that. (This is of course not intended to imply criticism.) Tesseract12 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)