![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Dear..
I found as an Admin and well experienced person, recently , you have deleted the wiki page of 'Thomas Rathnam"/
"Thomas Rathnam" wiki page is hosted in the Wikipedia site more than a year.
It had many reliable links. Most of them are genuine. And those links are third party web links. So, as you said it is not proclaiming self promotion.
As I said , Up coming person means.. he had already achieved few things and trying to achieve more. It doesn't means he achieved nothing. His films are released in theaters and his albums also released in TV channels. So, he is a notable person already.
Due to the notability of that person, so many editors , edited the page. May be few more things referred his recent projects. If you feel those paragraph's not meet out the guidelines, ask the editor to delete it or update it.
so, Please undo the delete and re host the wiki page.
Even , i can once again check the wiki page and edit it as per the guide lines.
Seeking your guidance to host the wiki page again.
Hope you will consider my obligation.
-- Praisewinner ( talk) 01:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malwyn a'Beckett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test match. 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) 08:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the move discussion at Template talk:2010-11 in Indonesian football#Requested move 2, where you participated. Please see Category:Years in Indonesian association football navigational boxes. I see your point that it doesn't matter how we title templates, but this category has seven templates which show a mishmash of hyphens and dashes. This looks strange. Do you think there is any kind of general guidance on how to get out of this? An admin who closed the move discussion by changing the dashes to hyphens in all the other cases would probably receive funny looks. I would assume this must have come up before. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Discovered by chance thatthese page moves remained unnoticed - Pumi dog -> to Pumi (dog). Can't move it, Move Pumi dog is not alowed for some reason. Also, now I am checking - Greenland dog was moved too, and Pyrenean Shepherd dog. Hafspajen ( talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen this? 154.127.56.111 ( talk) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The image you removed from the 2013 and 2014 AFL articles is the on the AFL article. Explain please? NickGibson3900 ( Talk - Cont.) 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Jenks. Btw, I've changed all the WI categories as agreed and will do the articles over the next few days. All the best. Jack | talk page 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having written Sexy Lady (Jessie J song), I have just received a notification that my page was linked from this one. Could you eMail the contents of that page to me?-- Laun chba ller 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks. I don't know how I've done this but I wanted to recreate the article about the Pakistani tour of the West Indies in 1958 and I have somehow done it in Pakistani cricket team in West Indies in 1957–58. Realising my mistake, I tried to move it to Pakistani cricket team in the West Indies in 1957–58 and it won't let me, possibly because there's a double redirect somewhere. Can you help me out, please? D'oh! Thanks again. Jack | talk page 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Howdy! Consider changing this article's title [1] to something better. Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks. An unusual request, I know, but as my user and talk pages had to be protected because of the attacks you have once again kindly reverted, would it be possible for you to do the same with my five sandbox pages? And since AA is in exactly the same boat, could his be protected too? I'm sure he'll be happy with that as these pages are supposed to be exclusively for member's own use. The pages are:
Sorry to burden you with this but when a longstanding troll who specialises in fabrication says "goodbye for ever" and "I'll go", it is difficult to believe that he is telling the truth. Thanks again for all your help. Jack | talk page 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Just re your opposition to the speedy renaming of the "Australian national soccer team" categories to "Australian national association football team" it seems like you might not be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Special cases. As I understand it this doesn't impact the Speedy renaming now that it has already been opposed? But nonetheless may be relevant elsewhere/in a regular renaming discussion. Macosal ( talk) 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
and actually hearing what I had to say, instead of whining "TLDR" as a reason to ignore what I say, or dismissing me because I'm the only one advancing the truth that's in need of addressing. For the record Turkish wikipedia has separate articles on Cacik and Tzatziki, and I note that a related Balkan dish tarator has its own article in English Wikipedia. The ethnic politics of the nom were clear as day btw. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the military operation, such as 'Operation Barbarossa' during WW2 - and the previous two move requests were both DECLINED by consensus. Please fix this ASAP. The wider "war" if history defines one, will/would get it's own article. Thank you. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of Industrail Cape Breton. Since you had some involvement with the History of Industrail Cape Breton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. G. C. Hood ( talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you listing angel di Maria as a man utd player. Have you bumped your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.199.83 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I noticed that last week you closed the discussion about the requested move of 2013–14 protests in Turkey with no consensus. I just saw that the article has been moved despite this decision. Can you do something about that? Thanks, Alex2006 ( talk) 15:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Please have another look at this discussion. Although there was clearly support for moving the album, just about everyone involved also supported redirecting ( ) to parenthesis. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you declined the speedy, do you have any suggestions on how to remove the draft, then? A newer version of the article exists at Draft:Bo$$ (Fifth Harmony song) and so there really is no need to keep the one in draftspace anymore. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You recently closed the Talk:National_Film_Awards_(India)#Requested_moves_2 RM as "no consensus". And as you say, poor arguments they were. Unhappy with it, I had yesterday requested more audience at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#NFA_move_request. Can you please relist it once again? By next week I hope we would have more people. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the bigger move into {{ Track gauge}} today. Smooth operation. - DePiep ( talk) 19:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the same applies to merge proposal on Guntur Coast.-- Vin09 ( talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You created (if I understand what has occured correctly), a no-move decision at norleucine. I was wondering why? As I understand it, motivation of a community of individuals in greater numbers favoring one decision is supposed to be insufficient on such decisions. It is the quality and validity of the arguments posed that should win out. I have provided a reference. No one else has. I have appropriately refuted the somewhat specious argument that norleucine is a common term "still in use" by pointing out that literally anyone challenging its use in peer review would succeed in seeing it changed, and this is in fact the case. I would agree that selective interpration of the occurrence of the term in the scientific literature might lead one naively to believe it is a common term in use, but it truly is not, apart from sloppiness, ignorance, or insufficient rigor in the peer review process. Further, a considerable number of comments seemed to be directed toward the view that Wikipedia does this or Wikipedia doesn't or should't do that. This I don't understand as I made a concerted effort to learn how to approach this topic using the rules laid out by the community. What I have encountered resembles the typical internet community response where those who interact regularly with each other rapidly descend on and swarm views that their colleagues disagree with. The scientific consensus on this topic has not only been reached, it has been formally codified. I provided first the reference, then directly quoted the relevent section. Thus, I would like to understand why you feel the arguments for the status quo should win out? I have to say, I have been considerably less than impressed with the quality of this website. I have certain expertise that I thought might allow me to contribute to improving the quality of articles. I've begun with something so mundane, something that should be so trivial as to numb the mind. Fixing a glaring error where a scientific consensus has been reached on a naming convention. Instead of posting the request and never having to look at it again, I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time challenging baseless assertions. I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational. It is not intended in that fashion, but I really don't know how else to describe the vast majority of what has passed for argument on this issue from the view of those opposed. Other than the apparent need to oppose something. The quality of Wikipedia will suffer if this is a typical experience, as I promise you, I, and most like me will not bother to contribute. Wikipedia will become nothing more than a source of other references, with people moving directly from the title of a page, to the reference section below, and ignoring all the intervening argument for argument's sake. I doubt that is the intended goal of this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.228.77 ( talk) 10:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings,
A few weeks ago you closed a
move request for
August 2013 Rabaa Massacre when there was clearly no consensus. I understand that initiating a new discussion would be disruptive, but from the way I see it, the word massacre is behind the whole dispute over there. So I wanted to ask for your permission to start a new RM for
Rabaa and Nahda massacre because I believe it isn't controversial. Even the opposing editor(s) seem to have no problem with mentioning the other sit-in (Nahda) that was dispersed.
[2] Thoughts?
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
i see you did a lot of paragraph merging at J. G. Fox. i'm curious -- is there a guidelines page that describes this style? i felt it was more clear with the paragraph breaks. Pgf ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you please move back to Wolverine (character) back to Wolverine (comics) there were several discussions about this in past resulting in it being at Wolverine (comics) the latest discussion does not seem to have same level of concensus and wasn't even the target of the initial proposition.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
this is okay, I didn't realize the Maxim Gorky novel Troe is Three of Them in English translation, and of course didn't even have a stub. I see now you handled a RM about Thr3e on the Talk page also. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So, is there any way that you could see reopening my move request? Your closing basically says that you could not find any argument more or less compelling and that votes were about equal. It seems to me that awaiting more comments could resolve the equal split problem. Abductive ( reasoning) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
-- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. May I please ask how you decided on your username? The reason I ask is because it is my family name, and quite rare. Thank you 60.230.218.131 ( talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Skip Bayless may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24. Do you have more refs available for this chap? (ps: the Tigers are in the finals again! Tigers in the finals = good for footy. dubious – discuss As for my poor old BrisRoy Boys.... I think it's called a "re-building stage") Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello:
While I can understand that you may not believe that "Comic-Con" meets the "primary redirect"-- not only is the name "Comic-Con" trademarked by the nonprofit Comic-Con International, it's also been the standard usage to refer to the San Diego convention for decades. Prior to the recent creation of 'new' conventions confusingly calling themselves "Comic Con" (particularly Wizard Entertainment's rebranding of its traveling shows) the term "Comic-Con" by itself always referenced SDCC, not any other convention.
For example, Hollywood Reporter's section covering the convention is under the heading " Comic-Con 2014" -- where all of headlines only say "Comic-Con", such as:
Or the more serious Wall Street Journal:
Likewise, the stories about the convention from Time magazine, only reference "Comic-Con" in the headlines:
These were just quick Google searches; if you need more exhaustive examples, just let me know. - HidariMigi ( talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering why you undid the edit in which "American Christian" was added to the Categories at the bottom of the page. I didn't make that addition, and I realize it was made by an anonymous user, but it is certainly an appropriate category to be included on Bayless' entry. It is well-known he is a devout Christian, and of course, he is American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Jenks, it very clearly states Bayless' religion is Christian in the info box. There is sourcing available for that fact, but I don't see any other sourcing in the info box. Where would you suggest the source be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Aaron Edwards may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Dear..
I found as an Admin and well experienced person, recently , you have deleted the wiki page of 'Thomas Rathnam"/
"Thomas Rathnam" wiki page is hosted in the Wikipedia site more than a year.
It had many reliable links. Most of them are genuine. And those links are third party web links. So, as you said it is not proclaiming self promotion.
As I said , Up coming person means.. he had already achieved few things and trying to achieve more. It doesn't means he achieved nothing. His films are released in theaters and his albums also released in TV channels. So, he is a notable person already.
Due to the notability of that person, so many editors , edited the page. May be few more things referred his recent projects. If you feel those paragraph's not meet out the guidelines, ask the editor to delete it or update it.
so, Please undo the delete and re host the wiki page.
Even , i can once again check the wiki page and edit it as per the guide lines.
Seeking your guidance to host the wiki page again.
Hope you will consider my obligation.
-- Praisewinner ( talk) 01:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malwyn a'Beckett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test match. 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) 08:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the move discussion at Template talk:2010-11 in Indonesian football#Requested move 2, where you participated. Please see Category:Years in Indonesian association football navigational boxes. I see your point that it doesn't matter how we title templates, but this category has seven templates which show a mishmash of hyphens and dashes. This looks strange. Do you think there is any kind of general guidance on how to get out of this? An admin who closed the move discussion by changing the dashes to hyphens in all the other cases would probably receive funny looks. I would assume this must have come up before. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Discovered by chance thatthese page moves remained unnoticed - Pumi dog -> to Pumi (dog). Can't move it, Move Pumi dog is not alowed for some reason. Also, now I am checking - Greenland dog was moved too, and Pyrenean Shepherd dog. Hafspajen ( talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen this? 154.127.56.111 ( talk) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The image you removed from the 2013 and 2014 AFL articles is the on the AFL article. Explain please? NickGibson3900 ( Talk - Cont.) 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Jenks. Btw, I've changed all the WI categories as agreed and will do the articles over the next few days. All the best. Jack | talk page 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having written Sexy Lady (Jessie J song), I have just received a notification that my page was linked from this one. Could you eMail the contents of that page to me?-- Laun chba ller 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks. I don't know how I've done this but I wanted to recreate the article about the Pakistani tour of the West Indies in 1958 and I have somehow done it in Pakistani cricket team in West Indies in 1957–58. Realising my mistake, I tried to move it to Pakistani cricket team in the West Indies in 1957–58 and it won't let me, possibly because there's a double redirect somewhere. Can you help me out, please? D'oh! Thanks again. Jack | talk page 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Howdy! Consider changing this article's title [1] to something better. Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks. An unusual request, I know, but as my user and talk pages had to be protected because of the attacks you have once again kindly reverted, would it be possible for you to do the same with my five sandbox pages? And since AA is in exactly the same boat, could his be protected too? I'm sure he'll be happy with that as these pages are supposed to be exclusively for member's own use. The pages are:
Sorry to burden you with this but when a longstanding troll who specialises in fabrication says "goodbye for ever" and "I'll go", it is difficult to believe that he is telling the truth. Thanks again for all your help. Jack | talk page 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Just re your opposition to the speedy renaming of the "Australian national soccer team" categories to "Australian national association football team" it seems like you might not be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Special cases. As I understand it this doesn't impact the Speedy renaming now that it has already been opposed? But nonetheless may be relevant elsewhere/in a regular renaming discussion. Macosal ( talk) 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
and actually hearing what I had to say, instead of whining "TLDR" as a reason to ignore what I say, or dismissing me because I'm the only one advancing the truth that's in need of addressing. For the record Turkish wikipedia has separate articles on Cacik and Tzatziki, and I note that a related Balkan dish tarator has its own article in English Wikipedia. The ethnic politics of the nom were clear as day btw. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the military operation, such as 'Operation Barbarossa' during WW2 - and the previous two move requests were both DECLINED by consensus. Please fix this ASAP. The wider "war" if history defines one, will/would get it's own article. Thank you. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of Industrail Cape Breton. Since you had some involvement with the History of Industrail Cape Breton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. G. C. Hood ( talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you listing angel di Maria as a man utd player. Have you bumped your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.199.83 ( talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I noticed that last week you closed the discussion about the requested move of 2013–14 protests in Turkey with no consensus. I just saw that the article has been moved despite this decision. Can you do something about that? Thanks, Alex2006 ( talk) 15:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Please have another look at this discussion. Although there was clearly support for moving the album, just about everyone involved also supported redirecting ( ) to parenthesis. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you declined the speedy, do you have any suggestions on how to remove the draft, then? A newer version of the article exists at Draft:Bo$$ (Fifth Harmony song) and so there really is no need to keep the one in draftspace anymore. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You recently closed the Talk:National_Film_Awards_(India)#Requested_moves_2 RM as "no consensus". And as you say, poor arguments they were. Unhappy with it, I had yesterday requested more audience at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#NFA_move_request. Can you please relist it once again? By next week I hope we would have more people. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the bigger move into {{ Track gauge}} today. Smooth operation. - DePiep ( talk) 19:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the same applies to merge proposal on Guntur Coast.-- Vin09 ( talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You created (if I understand what has occured correctly), a no-move decision at norleucine. I was wondering why? As I understand it, motivation of a community of individuals in greater numbers favoring one decision is supposed to be insufficient on such decisions. It is the quality and validity of the arguments posed that should win out. I have provided a reference. No one else has. I have appropriately refuted the somewhat specious argument that norleucine is a common term "still in use" by pointing out that literally anyone challenging its use in peer review would succeed in seeing it changed, and this is in fact the case. I would agree that selective interpration of the occurrence of the term in the scientific literature might lead one naively to believe it is a common term in use, but it truly is not, apart from sloppiness, ignorance, or insufficient rigor in the peer review process. Further, a considerable number of comments seemed to be directed toward the view that Wikipedia does this or Wikipedia doesn't or should't do that. This I don't understand as I made a concerted effort to learn how to approach this topic using the rules laid out by the community. What I have encountered resembles the typical internet community response where those who interact regularly with each other rapidly descend on and swarm views that their colleagues disagree with. The scientific consensus on this topic has not only been reached, it has been formally codified. I provided first the reference, then directly quoted the relevent section. Thus, I would like to understand why you feel the arguments for the status quo should win out? I have to say, I have been considerably less than impressed with the quality of this website. I have certain expertise that I thought might allow me to contribute to improving the quality of articles. I've begun with something so mundane, something that should be so trivial as to numb the mind. Fixing a glaring error where a scientific consensus has been reached on a naming convention. Instead of posting the request and never having to look at it again, I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time challenging baseless assertions. I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational. It is not intended in that fashion, but I really don't know how else to describe the vast majority of what has passed for argument on this issue from the view of those opposed. Other than the apparent need to oppose something. The quality of Wikipedia will suffer if this is a typical experience, as I promise you, I, and most like me will not bother to contribute. Wikipedia will become nothing more than a source of other references, with people moving directly from the title of a page, to the reference section below, and ignoring all the intervening argument for argument's sake. I doubt that is the intended goal of this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.228.77 ( talk) 10:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings,
A few weeks ago you closed a
move request for
August 2013 Rabaa Massacre when there was clearly no consensus. I understand that initiating a new discussion would be disruptive, but from the way I see it, the word massacre is behind the whole dispute over there. So I wanted to ask for your permission to start a new RM for
Rabaa and Nahda massacre because I believe it isn't controversial. Even the opposing editor(s) seem to have no problem with mentioning the other sit-in (Nahda) that was dispersed.
[2] Thoughts?
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
i see you did a lot of paragraph merging at J. G. Fox. i'm curious -- is there a guidelines page that describes this style? i felt it was more clear with the paragraph breaks. Pgf ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you please move back to Wolverine (character) back to Wolverine (comics) there were several discussions about this in past resulting in it being at Wolverine (comics) the latest discussion does not seem to have same level of concensus and wasn't even the target of the initial proposition.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
this is okay, I didn't realize the Maxim Gorky novel Troe is Three of Them in English translation, and of course didn't even have a stub. I see now you handled a RM about Thr3e on the Talk page also. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So, is there any way that you could see reopening my move request? Your closing basically says that you could not find any argument more or less compelling and that votes were about equal. It seems to me that awaiting more comments could resolve the equal split problem. Abductive ( reasoning) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
-- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. May I please ask how you decided on your username? The reason I ask is because it is my family name, and quite rare. Thank you 60.230.218.131 ( talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Skip Bayless may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24. Do you have more refs available for this chap? (ps: the Tigers are in the finals again! Tigers in the finals = good for footy. dubious – discuss As for my poor old BrisRoy Boys.... I think it's called a "re-building stage") Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello:
While I can understand that you may not believe that "Comic-Con" meets the "primary redirect"-- not only is the name "Comic-Con" trademarked by the nonprofit Comic-Con International, it's also been the standard usage to refer to the San Diego convention for decades. Prior to the recent creation of 'new' conventions confusingly calling themselves "Comic Con" (particularly Wizard Entertainment's rebranding of its traveling shows) the term "Comic-Con" by itself always referenced SDCC, not any other convention.
For example, Hollywood Reporter's section covering the convention is under the heading " Comic-Con 2014" -- where all of headlines only say "Comic-Con", such as:
Or the more serious Wall Street Journal:
Likewise, the stories about the convention from Time magazine, only reference "Comic-Con" in the headlines:
These were just quick Google searches; if you need more exhaustive examples, just let me know. - HidariMigi ( talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering why you undid the edit in which "American Christian" was added to the Categories at the bottom of the page. I didn't make that addition, and I realize it was made by an anonymous user, but it is certainly an appropriate category to be included on Bayless' entry. It is well-known he is a devout Christian, and of course, he is American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Jenks, it very clearly states Bayless' religion is Christian in the info box. There is sourcing available for that fact, but I don't see any other sourcing in the info box. Where would you suggest the source be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Aaron Edwards may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)