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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I don't think 4-3 decision constitutes "moved" decision. Of course, arguments say sources overcome perceived ambiguity. Speaking of sources, was I too late on providing sources that use "The"? Here are Tiny Mix Tapes, Technology Tell, CNN Philippines, Telegraph, Asbury Park Press, Forbes. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My bad. Half Shadow 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgetting something? --
George Ho (
talk)
03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case, we should include Filpro's opinions once you relist the discussion. Fair? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In any case, since you were involved in the RM discussion at Talk:African American, why not vote instead? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Filpro insists on reverting the name back to singular term. Therefore, that would mean also reopening the discussion and relisting it. What do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The same error you fixed in this edit exists also in Template:POTD protected/2015-10-08. Could you fix it? Armbrust The Homunculus 02:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just wondering what your opinion is on this, I know it's been raised before, but the article size for List of Melbourne Football Club players is getting pretty large and will continue to grow. I was thinking that the tables per decade could be put into templates similar to Template:AFL2015ladderprogression which is used in 2015 AFL season; it would massively reduce the size of the article and editing the tables would be essentially the same. I'm not sure if there would be notability problems though with the templates, so I thought I would ask your opinion before going down that path. Thanks, Flickerd ( talk) 11:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that two people have clearly objected, this is not an uncontroversial move. Please restore the page as it was and open a discussion. JesseRafe ( talk) 01:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Jenks24, the editor who requested that move has been topic banned for this sort of disruption. He had started a discussion at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty which confused many articles and none of the participating editors were any the wiser. In the midst of it all he had moved some of the pages and then opened this discussion unnoticed. Some of those were reverted but this one apparently wasn't. I'm uninvolved and have been assisting in clean up of this mess (in addition to being involved in placing the AE topic ban). Could you please unclose the move and revert it pending a clean up discussion involving all the articles? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you object to resubmitting this RM as a multimove? In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks, regarding your deletion of some of the entries at Purpose (Justin Bieber album). I've never seen that done before as the history may still need to be accessed at some point (whether it's a conduct issue or not). So I'm interested in your reasoning? Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
WTF Woodzy7 ( talk) 05:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Flickerd ( talk) 11:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You have recently moved Binomial after a very short discussion in which none of the participant was expert in mathematics. The results was an article name Binomial equation which has nothing to to with the subject of the article, in which the word "equation" does not appear. For saving correctness, I have moved the article to Binomial (polynomial). I have also edited Binomial (disambiguation) to clarify that the word is not ambiguous as a noun, but it is ambiguous as an adjective. With this modification of the dab page, as the noun "binomial" is unambiguous, I recommend to revert both moves, and, possibly, to relist the move request. Could you do that. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was listed for over two weeks and there was a consensus that Binomial (polynomial) was not the primary topic. As primary topic is a Wikipedia-specific thing, maths expertise was not required to make that decision. Ideally some mathematicians would have participated (incidentally, could I recommend watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts and advertising any discussions you feel need broader input at WT:MATH?) so that we avoided the apparently incorrect Binomial equation title, but the fundamental question of the RM was met and it was listed for well over the required seven days.
I don't think it would be fair to the RM process and those that supported and then waited patiently for two weeks to overturn that decision simply because no maths experts participated. But because you're introducing new arguments here that were not presented at the RM and the RM was relatively sparsely attended, I will say there should be no prejudice against starting a new RM as soon as you want. If you decide to do so, you'll probably want to link this discussion here as RMs so soon after a previous decision are usually frowned upon. The instructions for requesting a multi-move are at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure based on this inappropriate edit by a new editor. Due to only one !vote this article was due for a relisting. This editor remove this, and then added his own !vote, leading you to reasonably assume that it was okay to close this RM. If you have comments or thoughts on this, please let me know. Tiggerjay ( talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Jenks. Can you check your references and Oz newspaper archive to get a WP:COMMONNAME determination for Aussie swimmer Janet Steinbeck? I'm pretty sure she went by "Jenny," but I've got conflicting sources regarding her nickname and her full name, and I don't have access to NewsBank.com. No rush, please let me know what you find when you have a chance to run the search. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to nominate Bethlehem Steel S.C. for deletion, as that is the redirect with no incoming links. I'm not sure why I was on the wrong page, but I'll be sure to pay better attention in the future. What would the proper rationale for deleting a redirect with no incoming links be? — Jkudlick t c s 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That worked out very well (and that hook had, frankly, been even more dubious than mine). It's one thing to suggest something like that; it's another thing to see it put it practice! Once again, I thank you. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. What where the steps of reasoning used to reach this conclusion? — Ruud 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to merge a sandbox article with a current article? The two I'm wondering about are:
I don't want to hurt what anyone else has done - but I hate to lose what I did as well (even if it was a while ago.) — Ched : ? 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Please clear the requests. -- Galaxy Kid ( talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello - non-admin User:Natg 19 just closed four RMs as "no consensus". As I noted on the talkpages, since each was recently moved without discussion, no consensus RMs should result in moving them to the previous status quo, per WP:RM/CI. Since Natg 19 is a non-admin, would you mind making the reverts? The pages are:
Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What's more important is that four clearly not remotely primary topic articles which were inserted/created into baseline slots are judged by the overwhelming input of multiple editors to not be primary topics and are now at the right positions. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you online? Could you possibly be a good chap and remove the section break at the bottom of the Talk:Ana Ivanovic put in by Rambling Man, I don't see the need for a separate section like that, neither does SMcCandlish apparently. Obviously not asking you to change another editor's words, just the section break. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Beavis and Butt-Head#Requested move 13 November 2015. Since then I believe I have successfully renamed (with some assistance from Anthony Appleyard via WP:RM/TR) all articles that contained the string "Beavis and Butt-head" in their titles. However, I notice that Category:Beavis and Butt-head retains the prior capitalization. I am not familiar with how to rename a category, and I wonder whether you could provide advice and assistance with that. — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24, I've just gone through all the remaining links to Meuse and am satisfied that they all refer to the river now. So I think we're ready for you to move Meuse (river) to Meuse as the primary topic in line with the consensus we reached. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm a massive fan of the book, and I've made some changes to the page, ostensibly, created by you. (I've added the "Development" and the book cover image.)
I'm unable to give a finishing touch to the info box for the book cover.
Please help! D;
Dawniniceland ( talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I was searching for the original author and somehow stumbled upon your name.
Have you removed the "Synopsis"? May I ask why did you do that if you actually did it? :)
Thank you for all the help!
Dawniniceland ( talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I don't think 4-3 decision constitutes "moved" decision. Of course, arguments say sources overcome perceived ambiguity. Speaking of sources, was I too late on providing sources that use "The"? Here are Tiny Mix Tapes, Technology Tell, CNN Philippines, Telegraph, Asbury Park Press, Forbes. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My bad. Half Shadow 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgetting something? --
George Ho (
talk)
03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case, we should include Filpro's opinions once you relist the discussion. Fair? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In any case, since you were involved in the RM discussion at Talk:African American, why not vote instead? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Filpro insists on reverting the name back to singular term. Therefore, that would mean also reopening the discussion and relisting it. What do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The same error you fixed in this edit exists also in Template:POTD protected/2015-10-08. Could you fix it? Armbrust The Homunculus 02:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just wondering what your opinion is on this, I know it's been raised before, but the article size for List of Melbourne Football Club players is getting pretty large and will continue to grow. I was thinking that the tables per decade could be put into templates similar to Template:AFL2015ladderprogression which is used in 2015 AFL season; it would massively reduce the size of the article and editing the tables would be essentially the same. I'm not sure if there would be notability problems though with the templates, so I thought I would ask your opinion before going down that path. Thanks, Flickerd ( talk) 11:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that two people have clearly objected, this is not an uncontroversial move. Please restore the page as it was and open a discussion. JesseRafe ( talk) 01:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Jenks24, the editor who requested that move has been topic banned for this sort of disruption. He had started a discussion at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty which confused many articles and none of the participating editors were any the wiser. In the midst of it all he had moved some of the pages and then opened this discussion unnoticed. Some of those were reverted but this one apparently wasn't. I'm uninvolved and have been assisting in clean up of this mess (in addition to being involved in placing the AE topic ban). Could you please unclose the move and revert it pending a clean up discussion involving all the articles? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you object to resubmitting this RM as a multimove? In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks, regarding your deletion of some of the entries at Purpose (Justin Bieber album). I've never seen that done before as the history may still need to be accessed at some point (whether it's a conduct issue or not). So I'm interested in your reasoning? Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
WTF Woodzy7 ( talk) 05:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Flickerd ( talk) 11:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You have recently moved Binomial after a very short discussion in which none of the participant was expert in mathematics. The results was an article name Binomial equation which has nothing to to with the subject of the article, in which the word "equation" does not appear. For saving correctness, I have moved the article to Binomial (polynomial). I have also edited Binomial (disambiguation) to clarify that the word is not ambiguous as a noun, but it is ambiguous as an adjective. With this modification of the dab page, as the noun "binomial" is unambiguous, I recommend to revert both moves, and, possibly, to relist the move request. Could you do that. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was listed for over two weeks and there was a consensus that Binomial (polynomial) was not the primary topic. As primary topic is a Wikipedia-specific thing, maths expertise was not required to make that decision. Ideally some mathematicians would have participated (incidentally, could I recommend watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts and advertising any discussions you feel need broader input at WT:MATH?) so that we avoided the apparently incorrect Binomial equation title, but the fundamental question of the RM was met and it was listed for well over the required seven days.
I don't think it would be fair to the RM process and those that supported and then waited patiently for two weeks to overturn that decision simply because no maths experts participated. But because you're introducing new arguments here that were not presented at the RM and the RM was relatively sparsely attended, I will say there should be no prejudice against starting a new RM as soon as you want. If you decide to do so, you'll probably want to link this discussion here as RMs so soon after a previous decision are usually frowned upon. The instructions for requesting a multi-move are at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure based on this inappropriate edit by a new editor. Due to only one !vote this article was due for a relisting. This editor remove this, and then added his own !vote, leading you to reasonably assume that it was okay to close this RM. If you have comments or thoughts on this, please let me know. Tiggerjay ( talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Jenks. Can you check your references and Oz newspaper archive to get a WP:COMMONNAME determination for Aussie swimmer Janet Steinbeck? I'm pretty sure she went by "Jenny," but I've got conflicting sources regarding her nickname and her full name, and I don't have access to NewsBank.com. No rush, please let me know what you find when you have a chance to run the search. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to nominate Bethlehem Steel S.C. for deletion, as that is the redirect with no incoming links. I'm not sure why I was on the wrong page, but I'll be sure to pay better attention in the future. What would the proper rationale for deleting a redirect with no incoming links be? — Jkudlick t c s 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That worked out very well (and that hook had, frankly, been even more dubious than mine). It's one thing to suggest something like that; it's another thing to see it put it practice! Once again, I thank you. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. What where the steps of reasoning used to reach this conclusion? — Ruud 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to merge a sandbox article with a current article? The two I'm wondering about are:
I don't want to hurt what anyone else has done - but I hate to lose what I did as well (even if it was a while ago.) — Ched : ? 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Please clear the requests. -- Galaxy Kid ( talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello - non-admin User:Natg 19 just closed four RMs as "no consensus". As I noted on the talkpages, since each was recently moved without discussion, no consensus RMs should result in moving them to the previous status quo, per WP:RM/CI. Since Natg 19 is a non-admin, would you mind making the reverts? The pages are:
Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What's more important is that four clearly not remotely primary topic articles which were inserted/created into baseline slots are judged by the overwhelming input of multiple editors to not be primary topics and are now at the right positions. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you online? Could you possibly be a good chap and remove the section break at the bottom of the Talk:Ana Ivanovic put in by Rambling Man, I don't see the need for a separate section like that, neither does SMcCandlish apparently. Obviously not asking you to change another editor's words, just the section break. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Beavis and Butt-Head#Requested move 13 November 2015. Since then I believe I have successfully renamed (with some assistance from Anthony Appleyard via WP:RM/TR) all articles that contained the string "Beavis and Butt-head" in their titles. However, I notice that Category:Beavis and Butt-head retains the prior capitalization. I am not familiar with how to rename a category, and I wonder whether you could provide advice and assistance with that. — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24, I've just gone through all the remaining links to Meuse and am satisfied that they all refer to the river now. So I think we're ready for you to move Meuse (river) to Meuse as the primary topic in line with the consensus we reached. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm a massive fan of the book, and I've made some changes to the page, ostensibly, created by you. (I've added the "Development" and the book cover image.)
I'm unable to give a finishing touch to the info box for the book cover.
Please help! D;
Dawniniceland ( talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I was searching for the original author and somehow stumbled upon your name.
Have you removed the "Synopsis"? May I ask why did you do that if you actually did it? :)
Thank you for all the help!
Dawniniceland ( talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)