User talk:BDD/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Deception

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

Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School

I think the current Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School needs to be deleted as well, to move the current talk page with all the history there. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, as I'm not an admin. But both the article and the talk page have been moved now; it should be ok. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commission on Elections

I'm quite confused by your comment, as I left a note on the article's talk page shortly after your first note. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I just noticed your comment on that talk page, so I reverted myself on yours. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BDD. You have new messages at Mark Arsten's talk page.
Message added 03:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Please comment on Template talk:Citation needed

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

Re: Move

Are you going to move Rupa Ganguly (article)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. I'm not an administrator, so I can't move articles to existing titles; Roopa Ganguly already exists as a redirect. Per the RM policy on non-admin closure, I've tagged it with {{db-move}}, which will cause an administrator to delete the redirect and make the move as requested. In hindsight, I think could have made the move myself (see WP:MOR) since no edits had been made to Roopa Ganguly since its creation, but I made an edit to it by adding the {{db-move}} tag. Oops. I sometimes forget non-admins can move pages over redirects in certain circumstances, so I usually forget to check to see if I can. I'm hoping this will help me remember. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya, over redirect move could be done! Okay, someone'll do it now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BDD. You have new messages at Narutolovehinata5's talk page.
Message added 09:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734

I stumbled across the discussion on Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734. Most printed sources say that the Engravers' Copyright Act (not "Engraving Copyright Act") was passed in 1735. Before 1752, the year in England began on 25 March (not on 1 January). That’s why you regularly find publication dates with double years such as 1705/6 or 1723/24 for dates within the period 1 January through 24 March for years before 1752. It is a fact that on 5 February 1734/35, William Hogarth and fellow graphic artists George Lambert, Gerard Vandergucht, John Pine, Isaac Ware, George Virtue and Joseph Goupy signed a petition presented to the House of Commons in favor of the legislation. The first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1734/35, the second on 2 April 1735, the third on 11 April 1735. Eventually, the bill was passed on 25 June 1735 (not 1734). See Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, volume 2 (1992), pp. 39-41. For more details, see David Hunter, "Copyright Protection for Engravings and Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain", The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, volume 9, number 2 (1987), pp. 128-47. See also

• http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1735
• http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/commentary/uk_1798a/uk_1798a_com_107200712278.html
• http://www.armeconomist.com/lecture/wto/08trips/International_Copyright.pdf
• Karl Maria Michael de Leeuw, Jan Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (2007), p. 96.

Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to request the move again, but as the closing administrator found the 1734 form much more common, I think you'll have trouble. On the other hand, noticing that Engraving Copyright Act doesn't exist, we could move it there and explain its association with both 1734 and 1735. Engravers Copyright Act and Engravers' Copyright Act are red too, but I think since the article has already been the subject of an RM, further moves should be considered controversial and discussed in another one. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritic-related moves and Talk:Bac Kan

Not sure why you relisted this RfM. Maybe you hadn't seen this or this about relentless diacritic-related moves wasting peoples' time. LittleBen (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

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

Talk:Warish#Requested_move

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

Mercy (Duffy song) requested move

Hi BDD. I've moved this as per your closure and tagging. Unfortunately we now have a large number of articles linking to Mercy (song) that need to be updated to link to Mercy (Duffy song). Interested in pitching in? I'll help too. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I always try to do my best to follow through on the RMs I close. I may not get to some of it until tomorrow, though. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed the instance at {{Duffy}}. In my experience, these templates can be the source of a lot of these incoming links, but the system takes a while to recognize template edits in the WhatLinksHere. So if you're checking articles that don't seem to actually link there, that's probably why. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Málaga Airport

Please take a look at Talk:Málaga Airport. There is an awful lot of discussion going on for a speedy close. Reopen? Apteva (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have expressed this somehow besides just an edit summary, but I saw this not as a speedy close but as a procedural one. When an article is moved to a proposed destination before discussion ends, there isn't really one right way to proceed. Until I edited Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD to add a corollary, I don't think there were ever explicit instructions not to move an article which was the subject of an ongoing RM. So I ask myself whether the move was consensual or not. If not, I figure trout the nominator and resume discussion. But it reflects consensus, I usually let it lie unless someone objects. I don't like to see that "The request to move... has been carried out" notice.

Anyway, I was a bit confused by the discussion at Talk:Málaga Airport. I see you proposing a move, Dicklyon making that move, and a third user arguing for the official name. If it's just him or her favoring the old name, perhaps he or she should open a new RM. I understand your desire to keep discussion open, but if you're truly neutral on this issue, why not just step back and let the editors who want a name change speak for themselves? Of course, if you don't favor the Málaga Airport, then I've badly misjudged the situation and the discussion indeed should be reopened.

... was that confusing enough? --BDD (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I opened the RM, but was not taking a position on whether the move should or should not have been done. Dicklyon proposed the move by making the move, and this was less than 24 hours after having been asked to use RM to move airports - and was opened because the move was immediately questioned. My opening the RM was simply a procedural action. I had no reason for reverting the move, because a week later when the RM was closed, the result could have been to uphold the move, and one move is better than three. In other words I could not have improved on the two moves that a no move result would create, but I could have detracted from the number of times the article had been moved. I found it ironic that Dicklyon would ask for a speedy close, and right after it was closed, not only they but someone else continued the discussion - so if I had done the close, I would have just deleted the close box and let the discussion continue, with the RM still open. I just thought that re-opening the RM would let those involved "speak for themselves" more easily. I see that all of this is moot because a second RM has already been opened (although in a confusing manner). Apteva (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh. The whole thing is a bit confusing. But I suppose now we just let the new RM run its course. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Admin

I have replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Another reply in same page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BDD. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dab page!!

Are you going to start a dabpage here Nigamananda? --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are only two people that the term can refer to, we're better off using hatnotes; cf. WP:TWODABS. Is there a third person or topic we should list there, or will hatnotes be sufficient? --BDD (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see there's also Nigamananda Bidyapitha, which should be sufficient for a dab page. I'll investigate whether Paramahansa might be the primary topic. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Steven Amstrup, BDD!

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

Nice work!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Please comment on Talk:The Shawshank Redemption

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant to link to Freedom House. Thanks, DPL bot! --BDD (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism (according to Wikipedia)

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

Hm? What did I do? --BDD (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted to post it at User talk:JDDJS. --Niemti (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was meant for someone else, but I had coincidentally just edited Spriggan. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question in Sialing classification RFD

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

bot fixing

I saw you moved Template:Lay Cath Spirituality to Template:Lay Catholic spirituality but I wanted to know if a bot will go by and replace the template where it is or need we do that manually? Thanks. There was a similar thing that happened when I created a category with a typo "univerisities" and then filled it using copy and paste. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 11:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a bot will do any cleanup related to the move, but I don't think we have to manually either. I've checked a few articles that use Lay Cath Spirituality and they all seem to be displaying the template properly. It's also possible that a bot has already fixed this. See Knights of Columbus or Opus Dei, for example. If you come across any cases where it's not working, I'd be glad to help out. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed that it did a redirect. I was just hoping to avoid that if possible. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You could nominate Template:Lay Cath Spirituality for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If there's consensus to delete there, I'll happily help straight out the transclusions. I'm not sure other editors will go for deletion, however, since the redirect does no harm. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Amstrup

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been too busy to check back Wiki perhaps a mail...

Hello, BDD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi. This is to let you know that I have proposed multiple page moves at Talk:Disability judo classification#Requested move 3 and have also proposed a move at Talk:Disability racquetball classification#Requested move 3. I am sending the same message to everyone who commented on the previous round of move requests for these articles. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Hey, you closed the move request at Talk:Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders but did not move the page (and as a non-admin I'm not sure you'd be able to). Was this intentional or accidental? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The move is pending an administrator deleting the redirect that's holding up the move. For the procedure for these non-admin closures, click the link after my signature in the RM. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

BDD, thanks for your service in closing RMs, but I fear that these non-admin closures are likely to lead to more problems than solutions in some cases, especially given how persistent Apteva has been on contesting moves involving hyphens and dashes. On the Talk:Paris-Orly Airport and the other Paris airport, you didn't say which way you decided to move, apparently ignoring the expressed preference for Paris Orly Airport over my original proposal for Orly Airport. You might want to take another look, or be prepared for some questions about that. I've also expressed my puzzlement about your relisting comment at Talk:Richmond – San Rafael Bridge. I think that if you're going to be doing non-admin closes, you need to earn more respect by displaying a clear understanding of the arguments advanced. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I only specify where something is moved if it's not to the destination indicated in the RM. Paris-Orly Airport is being moved to Orly Airport, as originally requested. I thought there was pretty even amounts of support expressed for that name and Paris Orly Airport, and with the less controversial Charles de Gaulle move being carried out, I thought consistency made the original proposal more desirable. With discussion open for over a month, I thought it was time to make a decision one way or another. I could've called it no consensus, but only one editor seemed to like the current title. As for the Richmond – San Rafael Bridge RM, by "No one seems to like the current title" I meant "No one supports keeping the current title." I'm sorry if that was misconstrued as a statement about value judgments or something. Did you object to the relisting itself or just the wording? --BDD (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lizzieandpaulv2

I reverted your close here because Kww did not delete User:Lizzieandpaul since the CSD criteria did not apply. Legoktm (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I only saw that the article named in the section heading had been deleted by Kww. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ray of Light

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

Virginia Tech

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

Talkback

Hello, BDD. You have new messages at List of people from Minneapolis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Under "Talk:List of people from Minneapolis#Request for list format". Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Arrows

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

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

Well, I'll start fixing incoming links immediately. I wasn't really in a position to initiate the technical move process since I wasn't aware of the issue. I understand your desire to post where your comments will be seen by the most affected editors, but just remember it's always good form to contact someone directly when you think he or she has screwed up. Anyway, it's cleanup time. If that doesn't make you feel any better about the situation, I'm sorry, and I hope we can all move on as soon as possible. --BDD (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

– Fayenatic London 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Teen_Kanya_(2012_film)#Requested_move

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

This is going to be a bit complex.

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

Now you can help

Still you can help by checking whether the article should really be moved to "3 Kanya" because official website and poster uses it or current spelling is okay! If you think the article should be moved, please start a new RM using h3 header there! If possible I'll try nominating it for DYK.--Tito Dutta (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There's not much to choose from there, so I'd default to the source used in the news sources. Some very cursory research I performed suggests that "teen" is a romanized version of the Bengali word for "three." Especially if that's the case, I think the current title is fine. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ya, 3 is pronounced three in Bengali (as it is "three" in English). The alternative spelling in lead was terrific idea, I forgot about that! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed the 1961 film before, but it just occurred to me if it's always known as Teen Kanya, it may be preferable to credit the newer one as 3 Kanya for natural disambiguation. Hatnotes could link the two. --BDD (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction read above 3 is pronounced teen in Bengali. And ya, good point since the previous film of Ray was spelled Teen Kanya, the new one can be named 3 Kanya too! Moreover the director follows numerology (second last question here) --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be bold and make the move, then. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)