User talk:BDD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

African people listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African people. Since you had some involvement with the African people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stanleytux (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough RfA question[edit]

Hi BDD, sorry for the really tardy response to question you posed at my talkpage (User talk:Maxim#Rich Farmbrough RFA). Dealing with oppose votes that are based on a candidate's opinions is tricky. On one hand, how someone applies policy is reasonable to assess at RfA; on the other hand, if the candidate has a strong opinion on a matter, would he not have the judgment to recuse with regards to administrative actions? I wouldn't qualify an argument along the lines "candidate is an extreme inclusionist/deletionist" as particularly strong unless there were other arguments associated with that stance. In the case of Rich's RfA, I didn't find that a particularly strong argument, in comparison to the many others presented. To summarize the answer in a nutshell... I wouldn't consider your oppose vote especially strong unless it was qualified by other related details. Hope this helps, Maxim(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Maxim, and I hope I'm not belaboring the point. If I knew a candidate had radical views but I was confident he would have the judgment to set them aside as an admin, of course I wouldn't hold the views against him. My point was that I did not have such confidence. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not. I'll try to elaborate if I find myself making future votes of that kind. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Breeds of horse?[edit]

Just wondering, do you foresee a possible close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Breeds of horse? based in what is currently in the discussion? I know I started the discussion, but the more I read the discussion, the more confused I get about what the consensus is. I'm thinking that this discussion might need to be advertised to other venues (possibly with a note on Talk:Horse which has over 700 page watchers, or maybe ... I hate to say it ... an RFC.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely complicated. I think I could come up with a close, but I'm going to at least have to make a table to figure out what's going to happen with each item. Normally I'm in favor of bundling nominations, and I don't blame you for having done so there, but with the benefit of hindsight, it would've been better to have it in smaller pieces for easier digestion. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. When I started that nomination, I was definitely doing so with the opinion that they would all have the same outcome. Well, so much for that! Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Found an essay which you may be interested[edit]

While I was performing some dummy edits, I found this Wikipedia essay: Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I know that recently, you had taken a bit if interest in the Digimon-related redirects that were nominated, and this essay may explain some sort of concept for handling the Digimon redirects and articles. I haven't had a chance yet to look through this essay, but from the first few sentences, it looks like this essay may be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of this, and think I even remember the days of individual Pokémon articles! This may be personal bias, but I think Pokémon is so much more obviously notable than Digimon that the latter really doesn't even need as much detail as our list of Pokémon. But I haven't made a real effort to work on any Digimon articles, though. The anime WikiProject has a Digimon task force, though it would surprise me if it were very active. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


As requested, I am responding to your invitation for discussion on references. I was looking over the references provided, and found two to be blogs, and one to the transcript of a QA session of a student council. An entire article has been based on these three sources, without inline citations, and with a number of the claims on the page that did not seem to be supported in those references. I do not have issues with the nature of the page; I don't believe it to be an issue of bias on my part - but isn't one often blind to their own biases? So, happy to discuss :-) ScrpIronIV 12:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV, and thanks for getting in touch. Blogs can be reliable sources. This one is an official blog of a presidential studies center at a university. This one seems well sourced and professional-looking, though it may be mostly the work of one person, and I wouldn't've worked from it alone. And this one looks a bit sloppy aesthetically, but you've got an author credit, an editor, and lots of sourcing. Which of the sources was a QA session of a student council? I didn't see anything like that. The first source I referred to was in response to a question, but otherwise I don't see anything related to student councils.
Not all statements need inline citations—just those "challenged or likely to be challenged". If you think this is all likely to be challenged due to the controversial topic, you might have a point. If there were specific statements you had concerns about, we can discuss them. I mostly chose to forgo inline citations there because I essentially would've just cited everything to one of those sources (probably all three) or those used in linked articles. I wanted to put readability first, though I realize I may need to make some compromises in that area. Finally, I would say that bad sourcing is still better than no sourcing, so simply removing an article's references probably isn't the best way of dealing with those situations. Tags like {{self-published}} and {{unreliable sources}} can draw attention to these sorts of issues, and if you do end up removing all references, you can at least leave {{unreferenced}}. Anyway, looking forward to hearing back from you. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sure there are often better ways to do things than I do, I am still learning as I go. I thank you for the suggestions. My goal was to start a discussion, and I have found that making particularly bold revisions can accomplish that, although sometimes I guess it makes me look contentious. Half the time I get good discussion, and I learn something, and half the time I get my head handed to me on a platter :-)
If we could start with the Hauenstein Center, that article is a response from the organization to an open question on their site, and resembles a forum in that regard. As it is a studied response by the organization, it is the best source in the list. Two issues I have with it, though, are: First, we do not know who authored the response, merely that it was posted on their website. The organization has both student and faculty members. Second, the only sources it quotes are (an arguably partisan organization) and NAS, and although it is now defunct, it is particularly interesing when looking at it on the Wayback Machine. If that source were to be used directly - as it is fully attributed to authors - it might be more valuable. It also adds some depth to the character of those presidents, and quotes from them.
Looking forward to your response! ScrpIronIV 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose a student could've written the Hauenstein Center piece, though that's arguably true about any academic source without specific author credits. In absence of one, I think we need to just look to the notability of the corporate name under which it was written.
I conceived of this article a few months ago and was going to wait until I could go to a library where I could refer to a bunch of print sources related to the US presidency, which I ultimately realized I don't have the time for. Eventually, I think I or someone else should do something like that to beef up the article. I think it's a very interesting subject that could be a featured list someday. For now, this is a start, and it's out there for other Wikipedians to contribute to. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request[edit]

Will you speedily delete User:Godsy/common.js per WP:U1 for me? I have no use for the page (User:Godsy/vector.js serves my needs at the moment). I would slap a speedy deletion tag on it (and I've tried), but it doesn't seem possible (at least to my knowledge) due to the nature of the page.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Smile.gif.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

Hi BDD, I'm so so sorry! - Lord knows how but I was actually looking at the wrong bloody RM!! Face-grin.svg, Christ I think should go back to bed lol, Anyway my apologies for that, Anyway thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! It's not unheard of for me to write the wrong term into the closing statement, so at first I thought it was my mistake. I definitely see the source of confusion. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope you definitely didn't write or do anything wrong - It's just me having 5 minutes of madness! Face-grin.svg, I probably deserve trouting to death after that mess up Face-grin.svg, Ah well these things happen .... I guess!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


Why not weigh in and vote? You said that policy supports both the current title and the other title. You don't have to relist it; just put it back in backlog. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to get consensus from that discussion, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


I saw in your closing at Talk:The_White_Shadow_(TV_series)#Requested_move_27_July_2015 that you wrote: "I note SMALLDETAILS, but also that its application is very inconsistent." Did you mean that WP:SMALLDETAILS is generally used inconsistently throughout WP, or specifically at this RM discussion. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The former. I'll edit my statement to clarify that—apologies for any confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I dont monitor RM enough to disagree with your assertion. However, it'd be disturbing that SMALLDETAILS is a policy if it doesn't reflect common practice. I might use this RM as a point of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles to see if changes are warranted. Any objections?—Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
*shrug* I mostly work at RfD these days, but I used to be very heavily involved at RM, and that's my opinion from having seen a lot of these discussions. You're welcome to discuss this, but my hunch is that things will remain as they are. The thing about SMALLDETAILS is that it's really an option. The wording is squishy, probably intentionally, and it permits more so than it prescribes. If you'd prefer it to be harder, I do sympathize, but I'd be surprised if consensus could really be built to do so. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt if working on content ends up being a more effective use of my time :-) Just bugs me that it's a policy if it's inconsistently applied, esp. if it's not afforded more weight at closing time. I'll re-read it based off your input, and see if it's worthy of getting into my schedule. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think sometimes, SMALLDETAILS-type differences are called for, and other times they're not. Since the search box often behaves case-insensitively, titles that differ only in capitalization may get lost in the shuffle. But the practice seems fine, and results in more concise titles, when you have a proper noun and a common one, like the main example of Red meat and Red Meat. We wouldn't have to mandate "always do this" or "always do that", but I'd like something that spells out "if X, do this; if Y, do that". --BDD (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Otterathome. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.--Otterathome (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Otterathome, yes, I think you've made a big mistake, and I think you removed articles which are entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. I see you've chosen to "template" me, but I assume you're referring to [1], [2], and [3]. I encourage you take a less knee-jerk response to Know Your Meme, which does a good job describing internet memes. "Reliable source" isn't a label that a source just does or doesn't have; a source is reliable if it makes a reliable claim in the context. (And for the external links, it's not really making a claim at all.) To address these edits individually: for Walk the Dinosaur, fine. As I mentioned in the hidden text, the link was all about justifying the article's membership in Category:Internet memes. Since you removed the category, the link doesn't make much sense either, and that's a fairly obscure meme. For Mudkip, I'm not sure why you kept the category when removing the link. There again, I would say both or neither should be present. Finally, for Chuck Norris facts, I think you're dead wrong. That information justifies the Vin Diesel facts redirect (cf. RfD) and states factual information in (perhaps unfortunately) one of the most formal contexts we'll realistically have available to refer to. Please reconsider. I reverted you there, so let this be the D in WP:BRD. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've "templated" you, as you have not read the guidelines. Your reply has yet again shown you have not read them even after my first message. As knowyourmeme is home to copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), opinions, lack of fact checked info, being an open wiki WP:ELYES, so violates 2, 8, 12 of WP:ELNO. If you cannot find a reliable source for Vin Diesel facts to mention in the article, then redirect should be deleted, not not the restoration of unreliable sources to its target Chuck Norris facts. If you continue to restore unambiguously inappropriate links\unreliable sources, I will "template" you again.--Otterathome (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Two questions: How does KYM host copyright violations? How do these removals help readers? --BDD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

You closed the RM at Talk:Bongbong Marcos as a no-consensus. Doesn't policy state that it should be moved back? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bongbong" was the result of the previous RM. Sparse as the discussion was, it was upheld at MRV. That's the new default title. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection level[edit]

Was wondering if you would lower the protection level you installed at the Template:Redirect from duplicated article page? It's presently at full protection, so could you lower that to template protected? This and one other are is the last of these rcat redirects that have not had their protection lowered. (Also, please note how the This is a redirect template automatically senses the protection level now, so that when and if protection levels are changed, then there will be no future need to add/remove templates.) Thank you in advance for your consideration! Painius  01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Paine. I actually only installed that protection in a technical sense—the page was protected already, and then I renamed it. I'll ping the admin who protected it back in 2008, Fish and karate, though my guess is the situation has changed over the years. I'll bring it down to semi-protection. How's that? --BDD (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That's great! Thank you very much, BDD, I checked through Special:ProtectedPages to make sure that was the last of them. Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  20:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Name articles[edit]

I think I've mentioned this before, but the section of MOS:APO that you were using to move these articles was unilaterally added in 2013, and I do not agree with it. WP:PRECISION should trump a WikiProject guideline that nobody else even follows. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's well within policy itself. "Name" is more WP:CONCISE than either "surname" or "given name", is less tied to specific cultural traditions, and doesn't exclude the fairly frequent cases in which a name is usually used one way but occasionally used another (usually, a surname that gets used as a given name). Except where length or other concerns dictate we have separate given name and surname articles, why not? --BDD (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was talk page discussion, or that that language had been removed a few days ago. I'll join in there. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Usain "Lightning" Bolt[edit]

I spotted this decline of yours. You might want to reconsider per [4]. Also: Google. ;) (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no one's denying that nickname. The problem is that, given Wikipedia's naming conventions, "(nickname)" looks like disambiguation. So a redirect with that name suggests an article about the nickname. Variations like Lightning Bolt (runner) or Usain "Lightning" Bolt could still be appropriate, however. --BDD (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Missed the _(nickname) part. Smiley emoticons doh.gif Carrying on. (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Adam[edit]

Thanks for procedurally closing Hugh Adam that (and kinda double thanks cos I think you are an admin and can close it any way you choose). The reference you originally gave, from the Scottish Daily Record, which I think is owned ultimately by Mirror Group Newspapers, I found two different (both Scottish papers) so this can serve too as a third RS, thanks. It rather a stub at the moment but my experience is that once the scaffolding is in place, "normal" editors will have a go and add stuff. I would have liked to have put in a pic but all I can find are very strictly copyright. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Riverside, Lafayette County, Mississippi[edit]

I noticed you changed the category on Riverside, Lafayette County, Mississippi. What's the difference between a "former populated place" and a "ghost town"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question! I don't know. "Ghost towns" is a subcat of "Former populated places", and I suppose only appropriate for places actually called ghost towns, but... yeah, they seem pretty much synonymous to me. --BDD (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Greek fonts in a printer's font case[edit]


I suspect you're right that many printers would have Greek letters in their font case, but I also suspect by no meaans all would. Knuth notes for example in his essay/lecture Mathematical Typography, discussing the history of the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society in a lecture about a system that went on to be TeX and METAFONT, that frequently the Greek letters are not in the same typeface as the running text, as they would not necessarily be available in italic fonts or particular sizes, for example. Were it not off--topic I'd RS it to the version avaiable online from University of Michigan, here.) Unfortunately, these days "font" tends to be used in what is rightly called a "typeface": a font is, stricly, an instance of a typeface at a particular style, weight and size. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Where I've seen mixed Greek and Roman scripts, I've often seen the Greek letters set apart, which certainly supports the idea of them being in a different typeface. I suspect context would have a lot to do with the availability of Greek letters. Anyone printing a lot of religious or scholarly materials probably would have them, though your average jobber printing playbills and legal documents probably would not. What I think is certain is that in the pre-industrial print era, Greek letters would be available, broadly speaking. Whether it was economical for a given printer to invest in them is a different question. ({{globalize}}: I'm really just talking about printing in your motherland.) --BDD (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

US Presidential Election redirect follow-up[edit]

Hey BDD, if you're going to delete 2020, you should get United States Presidential Election, 2020 as well. (I can't remember why I didn't add it before, probably because it was a different author. It seems obvious now...) -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --BDD (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Feuerwerks-gif.gif Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Vandalism on Black Friday bushfires[edit]

Could you please block User: because he is not stoping with the vandalism, and we already reported him to AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which IP did you mean? I see that one vandalizing other pages. User: was vandalizing Black Friday bushfires a couple of weeks ago. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
User: is vandalizing Glooscap. I see I accidentally wrote this under the Black Friday Bushfire section, but this is a different case. CLCStudent (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A different admin got it. CLCStudent (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix-like sockpuppets[edit]

Responding here so as not to clutter the RfD page. These are the ones I have seen:

I don't think that they are Neelix, just some random troll. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt they're Neelix as well. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know - AfD culture[edit]

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I don't have anything to add right now, though I wouldn't mind being pinged if I'm mentioned further. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RfD[edit]


Could you cast a gander over the topic at WT:RFD where I am bashing on about this title stuff. I think I have my meaning clear, Rs can vary from WP:TITLE but not too much, the cats that we have exclude those particular naughtinesses (that sounds very Neelix); it doesn't matter if they are currently categorised like that but that they could be as part of routine RfD (I routinely rcat Rs up for discussion and my "without prejudice" stamp is running out) and of course WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE.

But as a guideline, it's a start but I'm sure could be polished (or outright rejected). I am not, I hope, WP:CANVASSing here, asking you as an editor not an admin, and asking you as an intelligent editor who quite often disagrees with me, always politely, as I hope I do with you. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I beter @Ivanvector: as the other one I grumbled these views to; WT:RFD is even more a backwater than RfD itself. It's even more obscure than Canada. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge or be bold[edit]

Hi, last month, I tagged you for a discussion at Talk:SLB Fans. I merged the content as you suggested, but I was wandering if I should merge Mística and O Benfica too, or put it through a merge discussion? I don't think it's really a controversial merge, but I a second opinion is best. Being here for I while, I know that neither article will ever be expanded beyond the 3 or 4 sentences they have, because the pool of skilled editors interest in the subject is negligible.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Threeohsix, I think you're right. Perhaps a Publications section at Supporters of S.L. Benfica describing them. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No fringe theory[edit]

Hi BDD, thank you very much for your action concerning Oxfordian theory. Right now new evidence has become known, concerning the famous portrait (engravery) of WS by Martin Droeshout. Everybody can see that this is a caricature, with some very grave implications for the existing theories. In addition to your action, I have taken initiative on the page Shakespeare authorship question. There I have deleted three categories, as they were nonsensical. My preview was: There is no reason for those three categories. This article is not theoretical, it is a historical overview. No theory is being acclaimed. I hope you can support it. Nice day to you, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zbrnajsem. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my edit. The Oxfordian article doesn't belong in Category:Fringe theory simply because it's already in two of its subcategories: namely Category:Conspiracy theories and Category:Shakespeare authorship question. There are two questions we need to ask here: is the Oxfordian theory a conspiracy theory, and it is a fringe theory? Reflecting the generally negative connotations of "conspiracy theory", Wikipedia categorizes conspiracy theories as a type of fringe theory. I don't really think we should. A conspiracy theory is simply that—a theory that people conspired to do something. And sometimes, that's exactly the case (e.g., General Motors streetcar conspiracy). So, is the Oxfordian theory a conspiracy theory? Yes. It's a theory that people conspired to obscure the Earl of Oxford's authorship of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. I suppose it doesn't have to be; I've heard suggestions that "everyone" knew, at the time, that Oxford was the true author and that the whole Shakespeare thing was a farce, but I believe this does not reflect most Oxfordian thought.
So it's a conspiracy theory, keeping in mind that that isn't a judgment on its truth. (That's beyond the scope of Wikipedia.) Is it a fringe theory, then? As defined by Wikipedia, we must say yes. Climate change is the relevant analogy here. Most Shakespearean scholars are "Stratfordians", so it would be misleading of Wikipedia to suggest that Oxfordianism is a major viewpoint in Shakespearean scholarship. Again, that's not the same as saying it's wrong.
I think Shakespeare authorship question should be under Category:Fringe theories, but not necessarily Category:Conspiracy theories. I'm not really familiar enough with the idea of pseudohistory, but my first thought is that that category is appropriate too. I will leave your edits for others to revert if desired, though. I know how contentious this issue can be. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Second Thoughts are Best[edit]

I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)