Talk:BDS

"POV-pushing"

Tarc, since I am "unwelcome" on your talk page, what is it about the description "activist campaign against the Israeli occupation of Palestine" that comes off as "POV-pushing"? There are two things that could possibly be what smacks of bias within this description, but the description seems uncontroversial:

"activist" campaign - this is an undisputed activist campaign. Those who are involved consider themselves activists. Sources to back this up: "BDS Activists", BDS page that repeatedly refers to its participants as "activists", Interview on Democracy Now!, introducing the founder as an "activist".

"Israeli occupation of Palestine" - I don't see how this is controversial. Look this phrase up in any search engine, with quotes, or just "occupation of Palestine". It's extremely common.

Also, why am I not welcome on your talk page? MohammadMosaddeq 05:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because article discussions belong in the article's talk page. As I said weeks ago, all that should be on a disambig page is a plain, neutrally-worded description; what it is, not what it does. Look at the original issue that brought me to "BDS" in the first place; this edit. Before, it was a long-winded diatribe on "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Now it is just, "this is a pejorative political term." See the difference, and why we prefer the latter to the former? Tarc (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the "against the Israeli occupation of Palestine" was just to add more information about why the campaign was started. I have no problem removing that. However, what is wrong with "activist", which is a bit more accurate than "economic". While the intended effects of BDS are economic, this has a particular connotation (namely that BDS has something to do with economics) that is not applicable to BDS. So, what is not "neutrally-worded" about the term "activist"? MohammadMosaddeq 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Tarc, if your problem was that your talk page was the wrong venue to discuss this, why was it that you didn't say something to the effect of "Please discuss this on the article's talk page", rather than "Unwelcome on this page."[1] Surely, there are better words to use to encourage me to address this issue on the talk page rather than "Unwelcome". MohammadMosaddeq 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Data Script

Someone recently added a red-link to "Big Data Script" and described it as "a programming language for big data & data science". Then, someone else tried rephrasing it as "BigDataScript" and "BigDataScript (programming language)," I'm guessing in an attempt to make it point to an article instead of being a red link. I reverted the page back to before the link was added, as Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article on Big Data Script and I was unsure if it was really a thing. A Google search brought me to this website, which lets me know that yes, it is a thing; a relatively new thing, and I think the attempt to add it is an attempt at advertising. If someone wants to write an article about this thing first, and the article indicates that the thing is notable and not spammy, it can be added to the disambiguation page after the article exists. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"bds"

Should the page bds be a redirection to this disambiguation page, or to Andreas Thorstensson? See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE for guidelines. -- Austrian (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if Andreas Thorstensson is the only usage of BDS that is in all lowercase, other than the Barbadian dollar, which in that case is typically written "bds$".--Prisencolin (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttered

Atlan seems to have converted the page back into a cluttered version wherein MOSDABORDER doesn't apply. The cluttered state that ignores the community-agreed ordering in terms of likely targets seems to be his preferred version strangely enough. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well "clutter" had nothing to do with it. And how did moving a single item to the top somehow make the page not cluttered anyway? You are clueless and incompetent when it comes to interpreting policy and guidelines. Almost all your edits show this. Your incompetence is only matched by your obstinacy and penchant for condescension. A poor combination.--Atlan (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]