User:BD2412/Archive 010

Status: Active. bd2412 T Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412 Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind: I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek"). It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page. Cheers! BD2412 Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059 DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24! Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome! For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Reluctant Hero Attribution Problem I noticed that the Campbell quote on the Reluctant Hero article is wrong. I checked the talk page on it and you said that you posted it to the article after you saw it in Hero With a Thousand Faces but you can't come up with a page number for it. I searched a PDF and my own physical copy of Hero With a Thousand Faces and can't find even the concept of reluctant hero in the book, let alone the quote in this article. Yes, refusal of the call is part of the hero's journey, but that doesn't make all heroes who refuse the call reluctant heroes any more than it makes all heroes belly of the whale heroes because they all end up in the belly of the whale at some point. To be honest, I don't think this concept of the reluctant hero is in Campbell's body of work at all. It might be a way that some others understand some of his concepts but I don't think he himself divided heroes into categories of either reluctant or adventuring at all. I want to make sure I'm not missing something before I overhaul the article to fix the attribution error. I posted a message to the Joseph Campbell Foundation message boards asking for advice (free registration required to view the forum), since they know the subject matter better than I do. They published my edition of Hero With a Thousand Faces (it's a low traffic board though, they might not even respond). Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I'm planning to remove the quote and try to clean up the article on Monday unless a proper citation for the reference can be found or unless somebody asks me to hold off or something. Bubblesort (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the notice. I have made a start at addressing the issue in the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Ergenekon trials Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in this topic? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Please keep an eye on the entry for Richard H. Stern bd, thanks for keeping an eye so far on the Wiki entry <Richard H. Stern>. Please continue to keep an eye on it for undocumented (largely undocumentable) remarks by persistent detractor GS. I would have sent you this by email but I misplaced your address. (Would you pl. send it at your convenience.) There are still some undocumented slurs (with no refs). The two last sentences of the second para. are w/o citation; the subject does not have a full time academic career as the entry now suggests, and I wouldn't call it all that successful--anyway it's all undocumented and at least in part undocumentable (how can you tell what somebody hopes?). (Subject is more or less a full time practitioner, considering that he is 82.) Also, the subject is still a Professorial Lecturer in Law at GW, as far as I know—-contrary to the suggestion at the end of para. 3 that he vanished in 2012. Computer Law was not taught at GW in the spring of 2013, because the prof was in a hosp and rehab home for a while due to some injuries. He got better by June 2013, and Computer Law should resume in spring 2014 with all the new sec. 101 cases. Another minor correction--the correct title of the U of Minn position is _Distinguished_ Visiting Prof of Law, a title sometimes also used at GW I think, and in any case is accurate, not a made up puff. (This item can be deleted once read.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC) POV dispute Hi. I'm looking for an impartial view from a random experienced editor for this discussion, in which another editor insists on removing the second sentence in this section's opening paragraph. I'm getting seriously fatigued from the argument. Would you care to comment? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon! Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office. The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 12:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC) The RfC about MOS:LQ still has an active notice in WP:CENT Please see Template:Centralized discussion. Since you closed the RfC on 17 August you may want to remove the notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Done, thanks. bd2412 T 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Revert move? Relating to the following discussions - Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Requested_move User_talk:David_Gerard#Chelsea_Manning Hi BD2412, 1) My thanks for your commitment to shepherd Chelsea Manning. Neutral eyes and level heads are invaluable. 2) I think if you review the edit history for Chelsea Manning, you'll note that immediately after the move from Bradley Manning was made to Chelsea Manning,User:David Gerard protected the move. Now, without considering whether the proper name for this article is Bradley or Chelsea I think we can all agree to two basic facts. A - The move to Chelsea was controversial (as evidenced by all the ensuing controversy), and B - There was little or no prior talkpage discussion supporting the move. I'd humbly suggest that instantly protecting obviously controversial moves is not wise. Any chance you could move back to Bradley Manning, then wait to see if consensus arises for a move to Chelsea? I wouldn't usually badger someone to do this, but my feeling is that this is making WP look kinda silly, which disappoints me...... I worry that if we wait 7 days for consensus to develop, that will be 7 days of looking silly. NickCT (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia has looked sillier than that for longer periods (and, frankly, it is not a wholly implausible title). In the long run, it will not matter where this article sits for the duration of the move discussion. bd2412 T 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Not wholly implausible no. Ah well. Can't blame me for trying. Well done practicing your adminly restraint. It doesn't strike me that User:David Gerard did the same. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid that you should wait for a REAL consensus after longer than seven days. Seven days is not enough, even when amount of votes is humongous. Probably 14 or 20 days or until votes die down? --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The matter is well-publicized. Editors should certainly be able to get around to expressing their opinions within the next seven days. bd2412 T 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Why should the status of the matter be relevant? I believe that more voices shall be heard. How about ten days? --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The standard period of time for a move request to remain open is seven days. However that determination came about, it reflects the consensus of the community that seven days is the right period of time to give the community a fair opportunity to comment on a proposal. I do note that it creates such an opportunity for editors who only edit one day a week, or only edit on the weekends. If there is a consensus in the community to extend this discussion beyond that point, I will be bound by that, but what editor will not be able to find this well-publicized discussion by next Thursday? bd2412 T 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Then where to propose an extension? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) On the talk page, in the current RM discussion. It is awfully premature to propose that, in my opinion. For all we know, the discussion will fizzle out by Monday. bd2412 T 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) "Denied" Just a note on tone, bd2312. No one put you in charge, you volunteered to keep an eye on developments. If you cannot do that without running away with yourself and a sense of authority, you should step away from the task. It is not your place to "deny" anything. The question was directed towards the community. --RA (✍) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The question was directed to ANI, after I had volunteered to take this matter on. I see no one else supporting the notion of an early close there. Of course, my decision on that point be overruled by a consensus of the community, or of administrators. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, there's a at least one other in the same thread. Though, the discussion seems to have moved towards a technical revert for now and to continue discussion on the merits of each name. I hope you will be more observant when it comes to closing the RM. In any case, I hope you accept it is not your place to "deny" anything, let alone community discussion. And I hope you will strike the word "denied" here. It gives a poor impression. --RA (✍) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC) If you believe that someone else in that same ANI thread supported early closure, please point that out to me, as I do not see it. I can assure you, however, that I will close this RM with the utmost observance, as I have done with many contentious discussions before. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Knowledgekid87 replied to you, at 02:13, 23 August 2013, saying "I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days?" I'm surprised you missed it. You replied at 02:45, 23 August 2013 only one comment later in the same sub-thread of comments. But the reason I posted here was about the word "denied". It stymies discussion. I'd appreciate it, if you'd strike it, or at least agree to avoid declaring something is "denied" (by who?) so early in a discussion. --RA (✍) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Closing the RM early would also stymie discussion, would it not? bd2412 T 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Points I made in my rationale at the ANI thread was that (a) the RM discussion was very highly contributed to; (b) with high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides; and (c) that I don't foresee any new insights arriving. In that context I said I didn't see any benefit to continuing the discussion for a week and asked others for their opinion. The purpose of discussion is to sample views and develop ideas and approaches. When discussion becomes repetitious, it can be wrapped up without it being stymied: it is already at a place where it is no longer progressing. You attempted to wrap up discussion without waiting for it to develop or see what direction it would go or how it would progress. Do you see the difference? Your rationale was based on your diktat (wrapped up in the first-person-plural). My rationale was based on the likelihood any further benefit coming from the discussion. I also framed my post as a question ("...can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR?"). I asked others if it should be wrapped up. You framed your post as a decree ("Denied."). You closed the discussion to input of others. I invited the input of others. You didn't wait for discussion to develop before closing it down. My question as to ask if discussion had already reached it's useful end. Maybe in future you'll remember this conversation and be less quick to use words like "denied" so early in a discussion. Best of luck, --RA (✍) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I appreciate your civility in discussing the topic, and your well wishes. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC) And you. Plus, whatever about the reason I posted here, you're doing a good job of holding a line in your approach to this case. I don't expect you to move the article back. If I was playing your role in this discussion I couldn't. Wheel warring would be worse an outcome. There has been a touch of it already and another admin did a very good job of biting his tongue and keeping his cool in the face of it. But, in the role I am adopting (without having put my admin hat on), I feel free to highlight that this RM should not be from the position the article is currently in. So, if I at times you find my finger in your face over the course of the next week, remember that doesn't necessarily mean I am pointing it at you. And again, good luck --RA (✍) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Manning requested move In case it's helpful, I've started a tally of comments from the survey section only. In almost all cases I've just copied the signature, which may or may not correspond with the user name, so if you want to find the account, you may have to go back into the page to click on the sig. Please feel free to copy, edit, use, or ignore, and thanks again for stepping forward to oversee the close. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, I'd already started my own! I'm glad you've made one too, though, as we can check them against each other. (Note, I intentionally removed the struck !votes, as they were not replaced with !votes for the opposing position). Cheers! bd2412 T 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yours looks good. I've also removed the struck votes; I placed those names in the unclear/undecided section. I've left a few comments after the accounts/IPs that have made only a few edits, or have been only sporadically used, but I only checked the obvious-looking ones, so there may be others. I'll probably keep my tally going (although it's a bit of a job so I won't promise), and as I said you're welcome to cross-reference or ignore completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yours has some that I missed, and I certainly appreciate it. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Knowing that there's going to be a move review no matter how it's closed, don't you think a three-admin close would be ideal in this case? I don't doubt your credentials or sincerity, but this is bound to end in controversy. It's inevitable. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Indeed - I have already asked two other uninvolved admins to assist in drafting and carrying out the close. bd2412 T 21:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I just want to thank both of you for actually "doing it right". How it plays out I don't really care; I think both sides have good points. If we could harness this passion into improving or creating articles ... it will be interesting to look at the article and title a decade after Manning's release. To shorten, how about putting the closed sections behind show/hide bars, and the move request likewise, in (say) six hour segments (perhaps closing a segment after twenty-four hours? In any case, thank you (and your brave companions) for your part in resolving this. htom (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I'd like to mention that although it may not not affect the result to a large degree you should be aware that some voters are apparently confused about the direction of the move, writing "oppose" when their explanation clearly indicates that what they oppose is the move to "Chelsea Manning", meaning that their votes should perhaps be counted the other way. That said, I've only seen this 2 or 3 times (always mistakingly writing "oppose"), so perhaps it's not worth the additional effort required to read the explanations when tallying or the introduction of interpretation into the process. 24.16.96.146 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I am aware of the problem - I will doublecheck my tallies, although at the end of the day this is a discussion, not merely a "vote". bd2412 T 22:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Zurich Hey - just wondering why you didn't discount the WP:OFFICIALNAME-based !votes in your analysis. Two of the support !voters relied exclusively on that, with several others relying heavily on it. As you know, it's not a policy-based rationale for titles. Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) It would not have changed the outcome. Also, which two? User:Casliber premised his vote on such a rationale; I see no other participant who did so. bd2412 T 21:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Jacob Steven Smith could not have been more explicit. Also, Martinvl and Jeppiz both relied heavily on the "it's how they do it, so we should too" argument. Even bobrayner's "more accurate" !vote could be read that way - "Zurich" is an accurate spelling in many contexts, so calling the umlauted version "more accurate" may be an appeal to deferring to local usage as well. As for changing the outcome, if you knock off those first two, it's 7:4, which is now only 57% less than 2:1 in support - which would seem more of a "no consensus" result. And if you further discount any of the other three I mentioned - even if only partially - that support gets even weaker. Dohn joe (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I could have just as easily discounted the IP for being an IP. However, I am not interested in putting fingers on the scale to tip discussion outcomes in favor of one view or another. bd2412 T 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) As far as I know, there is no policy-based reason for discounting an IP just for being an IP. There is, though, a policy-based reason to discount !votes not based on policy. Isn't that part of the job of the closer? Dohn joe (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) If we are going to get to that level of granularity, the IP vote basically was to keep the page where it was because a previous decision had come out that way, also not policy. If I were to count everything that I could in favor of not moving, and discount everything favoring moving, then the move only prevails by a small landslide. bd2412 T 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Why did you close the RM so quickly? There was no real consensus and the arguments where mainly based on biased statistics (I was waiting a response from In ictu oculi). Can you please reopen it for at least a few days so we can discuss it more deeply? mgeo talk 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC) RMs run for seven days, and are one of the areas prone to backlogs. The time had run, and no editor suggested prior to that deadline that more time would be needed. bd2412 T 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC) But don't you think the discussion should be reopened now? do you really think the move followed the common name policy? mgeo talk 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I am sure the 1999-2000 Tennessee Titans would agree with that sentiment. bd2412 T 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Mafia links Hi. After you removed the disambiguation links from Mafia and moved them back to Mafia (disambiguation) all the redirects that were previously pointing correctly to Mafia (disambiguation) are now incorrect. E.g. Mafia (album), Mafia (film) etc. Would you mind completing the process by fixing them. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Blech. I mean, yes, I'm on it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Closure review request for Talk:Zürich#Requested move 4. Wrong move? Maybe. Looks like many in support were based on the official name. Then there is a question of consensus. That is not clear at all. If you see this as overturning previous closes, you need a strong consensus which I think you said in the close is not there. Note well that whatever you do here will be wrong for many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC) The tile has gone back and forth, meaning that this doesn't overturn the previous close any more than previous close overturned the close before. I am hesitant to restir the pot. However, I note that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Diacritics in Latin alphabet European names titles, the outcome of which could affect this article title. I will mention it there. bd2412 T 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I started a Move review of Zürich. Sorry I had no choice... mgeo talk 06:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC) --> mgeo talk 06:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I completely understand. I would also recommend, however, that you participate in the discussion mentioned above about use of diacritics in article titles, if you have not already. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Manning close FYI SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Well, that went well. bd2412 T 01:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) He reverted himself pretty quickly. What a drama this is turning into! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, but I've seen worse. bd2412 T 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC) No consensus at Chelsea Manning? Since Bradley got moved to Chelsea without any apparent demonstration of consensus for the move, which has obviously turned out to be rather contentious, a "no consensus" result on the current move proposal means we go back to the original title, right? Not doing so would seem to send a message to certain admins (*cough* User:David Gerard) that they can push their POV if the simply protect controversial moves until it can be shown that there is no consensus for either title. NickCT (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Your first claim is factually incorrect, as has been noted on said talk page multiple times. You keep trying to make an end-run around WP:RM. Why is this? - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC) This is the talk page at the time you protected the page. You seem to think that consensus for a move was apparent on the talk page at that time. Would you care to elaborate on which conversations you felt were a clear demonstration of consensus? re "You keep trying to make an end-run around WP:RM. Why is this?" - That's a little rich coming from someone whose end-run around WP:RM started this issue. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) My talk page is probably not the best venue for this discussion. The circumstances surrounding the genesis of the current situation have been discussed fairly exhaustively on the article's talk page. bd2412 T 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Clarification Before you continue in your description of the recent history, I thought I should clarify to you (as it has been missed by many people, myself included) that Cls14's reversion of Morwen's first move was due to a misunderstanding, not an objection to the move itself. As noted in Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 4#Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning, Cls14 hadn't heard of the name change and Manning's new gender identity and thought the move was just vandalism. Apparently, Cls14 even gave Morwen permission to restore the move. -- tariqabjotu 18:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that is a significant detail, which I will add to the history. Mind you, what I am writing there is only a personal framework for me to review the issues, although I will probably end up proposing to the other two admins on the closing panel that much of it should be incorporated into the closing summary itself. bd2412 T 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14! Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome! For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Manning sandbox Another link for your sandbox if wanted: BLPN discussion, May 2012, about the move from Bradley to Breanna. Also, you might want to note that the move protection added on 5 May 2012 expired 1 June 2012. I actually thought at the time that it had been permanently move protected. As always, though, just ignore if this is too detailed. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks - the BLPN discussion is significant. I was aware that the move protection was temporary, but the import is that protection was considered necessary at all. I will clarify the situation. bd2412 T 19:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC) And just to complicate things Don't forget the "support" !votes stating they were conditional on media usage. And, more generally, tallies of common support/oppose rationales. (Thanks for taking on this hairball, btw.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Don't thank me yet; I'm sure a substantial percentage of the participants in this discussion will have nothing good to say about me after the close, no matter how it goes. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC) BRD WP:BRD isn't policy, and shouldn't be referenced as such. It's a nit, but the kind of nit that can cause trouble.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. That does change the angle of reflection, for my thinking. bd2412 T 16:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC) It isn't policy, but it's very much a "spirit of Wikipedia" sort of thing, where we encourage discussion instead of pointless back-and-forth and other disruptive activities. I think you handled that well in your revision. BOZ (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Another statement from Manning I take it you've seen this, but here it is again, in case not. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I have seen it, but since I am not participating in the discussion, the question is whether it will influence the participants. bd2412 T 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No move review I wonder if all of the participants could agree to not bring this to move review, no matter what outcome. Just seems like it would not be worth it, esp when you have a council of 3 reviewing the close. Couldn't we just all agree to accept the result? Perhaps this is wishful thinking. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Very wishful. bd2412 T 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) List of massacres in Turkey Hello, I am writing this to you in order to inform you that some Turkish-related articles have for quite some time been hijacked by a group of editors whose only goal, it seems, is to negatively portray the Republic of Turkey, its predesseccors and its people as warmongerming murderers. This has especially become a problem in the article of List of massacres in Turkey where they only allow information about Turks killing others, and delete all reliabely sourced information about massacres against Turks/Muslims. By doing WP:OR, discrediting sources and authors, source falsification, distortion and tag bombing. Sources which state the number of Muslims casualties during the Greco-Turkish war is persistently being deleted. Your help is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.77.28 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm kind of up to my neck right now. Try WP:ANI. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo While I believe your intentions are good, I feel you've made a serious error in assigning extra weight to Jimbo's not-a-vote and I've raised the issue at his talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I believe your concern is premature. First, I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, I have simply noted the fact of Jimbo having an opinion on the matter. Second, when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412 T 11:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Propose extension of move discussion of Manning? Although discussion is slowing down, I still think a few more days would be enough, like 10 days total. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I see no reason why any experienced editor who wishes to participate in the discussion would be unable to register their opinion by Thursday. Given the large amount of early participation, and the clear slowdown in new participation on the page, it is unlikely in the extreme that a few more days will do anything other than open the floodgates to inexperienced, newly registered SPAs. bd2412 T 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Unable to post to discussion regarding Manning - any avenues for timely action? Let me begin by apologising if this is not the right place to raise this question. I was directed by the Wikipedia Information team to post any comments regarding the article on Private Manning to the Talk page for that article, which I see you are administering. I subsequently discovered that the discussion on that page was limited to established users. I sent a further email to the Wikipedia Information team requesting advice on what timely action I could take. 24 hours have passed without a response. Would you be so kind as to advise what timely action, if any, I can take? As a long-term user, donor and defender of Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity, I would like to comment on the article as well as on the discussion on the article. It took me a few days to make the time to discover the behind the scenes machinery of Wikipedia and to establish an account. The four day waiting period will mean that I will may be too late to contribute. Thank you. Regards Teamkric Teamkric (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Update: I have sent my proposed post to the Information team and asked that they forward it to you in the hope that some pre-vetting process - by you or another - is possible. Again, apologies, but the locking of the Talk page and the absence of a response from the Information team leaves me at a bit of a loss. Feel free to email me if that would be helpful. Teamkric (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Greetings. Occasionally, when we have a contentious discussion, we place a level of protection on the page which insures that participation is limited to experienced editors, who are most likely to have worked with the addition of content in conformance with Wikipedia's policies. However, you may be able to find an experienced editor who is willing to convey your comments in the discussion (there are a few comments on the page that are noted to have been placed there in such a manner). As I have volunteered to participate in the closure of the discussion, it would not be appropriate for me to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you BD2412. And thank you also for being patient with me as I take my baby steps here on Wikipedia. I have emailed SlimVirgin. Is it appropriate in due course to remove this from and thereby declutter your Talk page. I give my consent if it is required for you to do that. Please let me know if you need me to do something. Kind regards. Teamkric (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No worries. When my talk page gets too long, I will archive it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Fullest most detailed rationale for original move posted By User:Morwen and me: Talk:Chelsea Manning#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I am aware of the arguments being raised on both sides. Aside from some additional precedents pointed out, this is basically a concise summation of arguments already raised throughout the discussion. However, the primary question being put on the plate of the closing panel is: what is the consensus of the community with respect to these arguments? bd2412 T 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Your patience is to be commended. I see that my idea of splitting into two pages isn't going to fly, but something the second announcement from Manning might. Write the article portions from birth through the sentencing as Bradley with masculine pronouns, and the other portions (including the lead, announcement, appeals, ...) with Chelsea and feminine pronouns. htom (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Incomplete dabs I'm not understanding why you are tagging these dabs as incomplete. As far as I know, these are the only churches by those names in NYC, and the dab is about NYC, not about all churches by that name everywhere. That would be another dab page, which anyone interested is welcome to put together. What's your thinking here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) This is policy, per WP:INCOMPDAB. A disambiguation page can only be at a base page name with no parenthetical, or at a (disambiguation) parenthetical. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, not policy, an editing guideline. Kind of a stupid rule, since the pages are helpful to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The alternate parentheticals will still redirect to the properly titled disambig pages, or sections therein, once the merges and moves are done. Please note that if we don't limit disambiguation titles like this, it becomes much harder to separate out appropriately disambiguated pages from pages errantly tagged as disambiguation pages, and also makes it that much harder to find and fix all disambiguation links, particularly links that intentionally point to a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Typo in your sandbox2 You wrote: ... some external sources indicate that "Bradley" can be a male name or a female name. However, "Bradley" as a male name is exceedingly rare. I believe that your second "Bradley" was meant to be a "Chelsea". Cheers! -- 200.7.90.57 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)