User talk:Bondegezou

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

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 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Contents

Christian Union[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 wordsdeeds 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mid Ulster[edit]

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 wordsdeeds 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 wordsdeeds 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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"[edit]

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 wordsdeeds 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

November 2013[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg The Dolphin of Constructive Comment
Thanks for your level-heded contribution at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Request_for_comment!

Face-smile.svg

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

An Independence from Europe[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency)[edit]

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 wordsdeeds 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 wordsdeeds 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.poulter@bristol.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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Thanks![edit]

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

ORCID[edit]

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[edit]

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

Draft:Medworxx[edit]

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![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg 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[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Weidner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jordan (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) 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Manika Article[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

John Bickley - UKIP PPC for Oldham West & Royton[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Joss Buckley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Casualty, The Professionals and Theatre Royal (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) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of political parties who have no MPs or seats[edit]

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![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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...[edit]

L'Adoration des bergers, 1633, Londres, National Gallery.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anderson, Rabin and Wakeman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Supergroup and Brian Lane (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) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and green light I think[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to David Edwards, John Middleton, John Ashton, David Wood, James Steele and Martin White

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Iris Robinson[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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. Information icon 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 urgentlyInformation icon 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?[edit]

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)