![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Sorry, my excuse is that I have bad flu at the moment. Tony (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you revert an undiscussed page move for Hồng Bàng Dynasty? [1] I tried to db-move, [2] but that was reverted. [3] Britannica gives "Hung dynasty", as does History of Vietnam (2008). Cf. Tudor dynasty. Kauffner ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo ^^^ 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
On this page Telephone numbers in the British Indian Ocean Territory, the link in the Asia box doesn't work. The "the" is missing. Is that something you can fix up? 80.42.230.234 ( talk) 09:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I need your advice again. As an arbitrator, you know much more than I do about policies. Our decision to rename Scale (music) is being discussed in WT:AT. I was wondering if you could help me to fully understand this statement of yours (see above):
You say that the oppose and support votes were "equally well" founded in policy. Obviously, most of this weight was given by WP:NCDAB, which stated:
Indeed, in your closing statement for the requested move to "Scale (music)", you wrote:
I guess that, without
WP:NCDAB, you would have rejected the RM. Am I right? In other words, the support expressed by most editors in
Talk:Scale (music) would not have enough "weight" to prevail against a preference for "natural disambiguation" explicitly expressed by a Wikipedia policy
WP:PRECISION, would it?
Paolo.dL (
talk) 12:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is step 1 in a WP:DRV about several AFL 'rivalry' deletion debates. I have to ask why you made several speedy keep decisions for articles that clearly fail WP:N or at least should have had an actual debate. Not a single reason was given for the speedy keeps and none of the examples given to allow a speedy keep at WP:SK apply to any of the articles proposed for deletion, all of whom have had several months or years to gain better references. The AFD guidelines say that after seven days an uninvolved admin will assess the deletion debate, you are part of Wikiproject AFL and cannot be considered 'uninvolved'. This is a clear violation of all the guidelines established for WP:AFD and WP:SK and I will be proceeding to a WP:DRV should you be unable to acknowledge your erroneous speedy keeps and your stifling of established wikipedia guidelines simply because you have a bias about the subjects of the deletion debates. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Could you please reopen this proposal. You know there is also another proposal which is the same as this one. I was wondering if we could have more time to discuss the issue. Thanking you in anticipation. In fact 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this non-administrative closure by Mdann52? It is being challenged here. Kauffner ( talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you were around back them but we had a few batches of micro subs being repeatedly created, so a bunch were salted including Tom Derickx. This has now been created at Tom Derickx (footballer) and should be moved to the primary topic. Is there an easy way to see how many more salted AFL current player articles exist? Cheers, The-Pope ( talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jenks.
Did you forget to move the talkpage Talk:Nanjing incident when you moved the article page?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::No, it's redirecting to itself.
HandsomeFella (
talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There's something really fishy going on here. When I click
Talk:Nanjing incident, I get this result:
But when I click Talk:Nanking Incident, I end up at the Talk:Nanjing incident. Note that its the J variant of the name, and the uncapped version of "incident", from the K variant, with the capped "Incident". The strangest thing is that I don't get a redirect message.
Could it be my cache that is pulling my leg?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, shortly after you moved this page, someone else moved it to Animal-rights movement; given that this move was the result of a due process RM, I think adding the hyphen (which isn't supported by sources) is improper. Would you consider reverting this move? I don't have the power. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How long must I wait before I can propose renaming to "Coach Pantusso"? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jenks24,
While editing using a mobile phone, I was looking at my watchlist. Something else came up and I put my phone into my pocket. Inadvertently, I hit "rollback" and removed a comment you made on Sandstein's talk page. This was an unexpected mistake as I was not even taking a look at that talk page at the time. I very much regret this error and offer my apologies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_page_move regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- KarlB ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you Jenks24, but I thought I should let you know I wasn't informed on my talk page of the recent discussion in relation to moving the page Vehicle dynamics. I wasn't particularly invested in the grammatically precise name, especially given some precedence for the current name. Nevertheless, I believe the opposing viewpoint in the move discussion may have been neglected as a result. In addition, categorisation of the previous move as "lunacy" does concern me on a minor level. Thanks and best wishes. -- Xaliqen ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you use 'replace all" of any text editor or custom regex script or any other script for clean up works after making a move, as you have done here? I also used to use Word processor's replace all functions! But, it changes image file name and reference titles too! So, I have stopped using it. Do you have any other suggestion for quick clean up? -- Tito Dutta ✉ 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware, I have a long-term pet project to standardize the format of Wiki's Vietnam-related articles. In the diacritics RfC last year, the editors who wanted to rewrite the the guideline cited primarily National Geographic and Britannica, neither of which use Vietnamese diacritics. This was a very large RfC, so I rewrote the Vietnamese naming conventions to conform to the outcome. Since then, I have been plugging away periodically to implement this. I standardized not only titles, but also the format for the openings and infoboxes. Judging from his contribution list, User:In ictu oculi has spent a great of time and effort in the last week or so to frustrate what I have been doing. He has a posted a series of RM and uses each one as a platform to make accusations against me, see here, here, or here. He frequently badgers me with questions and demands that I do this or that. Explaining myself doesn't help; He can start right back up with the same questions. If I move an article, categorize a redirect, or make spelling in the text correspond to a title, there is a new round of complaints. He is also busy creating articles about non-notable subjects, Dolvis-syle. I don't know if you can do anything about any of that, but something you might help me with is Bui Doi. I tried lower casing this to Bui doi, but IIO reverted my request. [4] It isn't a proper noun. There's no reason to upper case it except that he wants to get back at me. Kauffner ( talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, re this edit, the only reason why I put a move request up in the first place is that there was a redirect in the way with an edit history. Without that obstacle, I would have just moved the article. Given that there wasn't any comment on the request, I would have expected that an admin simply moves it, given that it's obviously uncontroversial. I'm surprised that you have relisted it. Should I have put up a different type of request? You can reply here. Schwede 66 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As you said supremacy of formats, it goes: Test, ODI, first-class, List A, T20I, T20, but the international cricket includes only 3 format:Test ,ODIs,T20Is,after that any domestic format comes.international cricket has more priority that domestic cricket.Remeber a player calibre is known by its international record ,not by dumb domestic cricket including List a and first class matches.Remember. Refer to ICC and Cricinfo .Remember international is more important.dont go on huge waste figures data in domestic cricket. (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor barnstar |
For the amazing work at Lord's Pavilion !!! -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling.
KarlB (
talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just here to ask for details on why the page for the Swedish 'INGRID' art collective was deleted. The primary points were listed in the deletion log, but if specifics on what would constitute a suitable page on the subject (which includes several major musical artists, and with proper references etc. should most likely be deemed noteable), I would hope I could create a better and more suitable page. However, I don't want to just make the same mistakes as the previous author and cause nuisance. Any pointers appreciated. AmbroseCadwell ( talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the work you put into setting ATV Jordan right. BigNate37 (T) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenks, as RM-closer you should be aware of a possible oddity concerning two RMs you closed. It seems an IP has been setting up Miszabot archiving (itself no problem) in an unusual manner over several recent RMs:
In the second case had I, or other Users, been able to see User:Amore Mio's objections in RM1 then it is likely that there would have been oppose statements. But I am not asking for it to be reopened. This post is for info only, I am not requesting any action. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The auto archive bot issue has already been laughed out of town. If Prolog knew about page moves and couldn't be bothered to revert them, they can't be that big a deal. [5] He sure sounds ticked though. Maybe there is an article about Finland somewhere I can copyedit, or some other way to make nice to the guy. Kauffner ( talk) 11:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You already closed requested-moves for Para Dog-faced Bat and Southern Dog-faced Bat, this is the third. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
hello,
could you check whether the history of User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox14 could be merged with Pyramid of Neferefre? Thanks in advance. Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
— David Levy 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. That was sure a lot of fireworks. I guess I no longer have a clean wiki-record to boast of. As soon as I get over this flu, I expect to be once again doing my thing, either promoting the use of the English language, or oppressing black Eastern Europeans, depending on how you look it. Kauffner ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I insert unnecessary info there? Are there any more unnecessary info in Twitter section? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for moving White-lipped Peccary and Chacoan Peccary. Will you be fixing all the now-redirected links or will other users have to it? Outback the koala ( talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Jenks24
There hasn't been much discussion here and not any here, so should I proceed to make the changes (converting instances of "Russo–Turkish" into "Russo-Turkish", or is it customary to wait longer for a result to take shape / a consensus to be acted upon to emerge, and if so, how much longer?
Regards – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please revert your close of Talk:Jane Harrison (GC)? Mike Cline closed it yesterday, but reverted it on my request to get more input. I thought it would run for another week, not less than 24 hours.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24 I noticed the names of the candidates that Loxton stood against in all his elections were named except one, the election of 1961. This was an important election for Loxton and for Prahran due to the history made when an issue occurred at the ballot box (have a look at page and references) Hence i added the name of the candidate as i was currently making a page for them. Lgbtoz ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
How did you find no consensus to move Door furniture? Only one person opposed. Powers T 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Where was the clear consensus for the RM closure at Syrian Civil War? Considering there were editors who would not support a move without decapitalisation, I don't think it was as clear as you judged it to be. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a requested move
Talk:Silajit Majumder (this was my one of the very first requests), which ended with a "no consensus", later I found someone else has become
WP:BOLD and moved the article to proposed first name spelling!
I generally never move an article directly, the only reason I want to notify creator/primary contributors about the proposed move, which is not possible in direct move.
Recently you have closed this request as
Talk:Kalpana_Datta#Requested_move as no consensus. But, how that can be a "no consensus", see all the references and external links added in the article are using the proposed spelling. Anyway... I think someone will be
WP:BOLD and move the article directly in future (as it has happened few times before too).
And in such situation, what is the value of the previous request move's consensus (even if it is "no consensus", still it is a consensus)? The procedure should be changed– if a request of moving an article to a particular title has been rejected somehow, and later if anyone wants to do the the same move, (s)he has to discuss first and can't move directly!
In addition, I want to re-apply the move since all ref and ELs are using proposed spelling. But, I don't want to start move review, shall I request move again? --
Tito Dutta
✉ 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope next time there are more participants as that makes judging the consensus a lot easier.
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Sorry, my excuse is that I have bad flu at the moment. Tony (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you revert an undiscussed page move for Hồng Bàng Dynasty? [1] I tried to db-move, [2] but that was reverted. [3] Britannica gives "Hung dynasty", as does History of Vietnam (2008). Cf. Tudor dynasty. Kauffner ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo ^^^ 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
On this page Telephone numbers in the British Indian Ocean Territory, the link in the Asia box doesn't work. The "the" is missing. Is that something you can fix up? 80.42.230.234 ( talk) 09:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I need your advice again. As an arbitrator, you know much more than I do about policies. Our decision to rename Scale (music) is being discussed in WT:AT. I was wondering if you could help me to fully understand this statement of yours (see above):
You say that the oppose and support votes were "equally well" founded in policy. Obviously, most of this weight was given by WP:NCDAB, which stated:
Indeed, in your closing statement for the requested move to "Scale (music)", you wrote:
I guess that, without
WP:NCDAB, you would have rejected the RM. Am I right? In other words, the support expressed by most editors in
Talk:Scale (music) would not have enough "weight" to prevail against a preference for "natural disambiguation" explicitly expressed by a Wikipedia policy
WP:PRECISION, would it?
Paolo.dL (
talk) 12:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is step 1 in a WP:DRV about several AFL 'rivalry' deletion debates. I have to ask why you made several speedy keep decisions for articles that clearly fail WP:N or at least should have had an actual debate. Not a single reason was given for the speedy keeps and none of the examples given to allow a speedy keep at WP:SK apply to any of the articles proposed for deletion, all of whom have had several months or years to gain better references. The AFD guidelines say that after seven days an uninvolved admin will assess the deletion debate, you are part of Wikiproject AFL and cannot be considered 'uninvolved'. This is a clear violation of all the guidelines established for WP:AFD and WP:SK and I will be proceeding to a WP:DRV should you be unable to acknowledge your erroneous speedy keeps and your stifling of established wikipedia guidelines simply because you have a bias about the subjects of the deletion debates. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Could you please reopen this proposal. You know there is also another proposal which is the same as this one. I was wondering if we could have more time to discuss the issue. Thanking you in anticipation. In fact 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this non-administrative closure by Mdann52? It is being challenged here. Kauffner ( talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you were around back them but we had a few batches of micro subs being repeatedly created, so a bunch were salted including Tom Derickx. This has now been created at Tom Derickx (footballer) and should be moved to the primary topic. Is there an easy way to see how many more salted AFL current player articles exist? Cheers, The-Pope ( talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jenks.
Did you forget to move the talkpage Talk:Nanjing incident when you moved the article page?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::No, it's redirecting to itself.
HandsomeFella (
talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There's something really fishy going on here. When I click
Talk:Nanjing incident, I get this result:
But when I click Talk:Nanking Incident, I end up at the Talk:Nanjing incident. Note that its the J variant of the name, and the uncapped version of "incident", from the K variant, with the capped "Incident". The strangest thing is that I don't get a redirect message.
Could it be my cache that is pulling my leg?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, shortly after you moved this page, someone else moved it to Animal-rights movement; given that this move was the result of a due process RM, I think adding the hyphen (which isn't supported by sources) is improper. Would you consider reverting this move? I don't have the power. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How long must I wait before I can propose renaming to "Coach Pantusso"? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jenks24,
While editing using a mobile phone, I was looking at my watchlist. Something else came up and I put my phone into my pocket. Inadvertently, I hit "rollback" and removed a comment you made on Sandstein's talk page. This was an unexpected mistake as I was not even taking a look at that talk page at the time. I very much regret this error and offer my apologies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_page_move regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- KarlB ( talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you Jenks24, but I thought I should let you know I wasn't informed on my talk page of the recent discussion in relation to moving the page Vehicle dynamics. I wasn't particularly invested in the grammatically precise name, especially given some precedence for the current name. Nevertheless, I believe the opposing viewpoint in the move discussion may have been neglected as a result. In addition, categorisation of the previous move as "lunacy" does concern me on a minor level. Thanks and best wishes. -- Xaliqen ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you use 'replace all" of any text editor or custom regex script or any other script for clean up works after making a move, as you have done here? I also used to use Word processor's replace all functions! But, it changes image file name and reference titles too! So, I have stopped using it. Do you have any other suggestion for quick clean up? -- Tito Dutta ✉ 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware, I have a long-term pet project to standardize the format of Wiki's Vietnam-related articles. In the diacritics RfC last year, the editors who wanted to rewrite the the guideline cited primarily National Geographic and Britannica, neither of which use Vietnamese diacritics. This was a very large RfC, so I rewrote the Vietnamese naming conventions to conform to the outcome. Since then, I have been plugging away periodically to implement this. I standardized not only titles, but also the format for the openings and infoboxes. Judging from his contribution list, User:In ictu oculi has spent a great of time and effort in the last week or so to frustrate what I have been doing. He has a posted a series of RM and uses each one as a platform to make accusations against me, see here, here, or here. He frequently badgers me with questions and demands that I do this or that. Explaining myself doesn't help; He can start right back up with the same questions. If I move an article, categorize a redirect, or make spelling in the text correspond to a title, there is a new round of complaints. He is also busy creating articles about non-notable subjects, Dolvis-syle. I don't know if you can do anything about any of that, but something you might help me with is Bui Doi. I tried lower casing this to Bui doi, but IIO reverted my request. [4] It isn't a proper noun. There's no reason to upper case it except that he wants to get back at me. Kauffner ( talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, re this edit, the only reason why I put a move request up in the first place is that there was a redirect in the way with an edit history. Without that obstacle, I would have just moved the article. Given that there wasn't any comment on the request, I would have expected that an admin simply moves it, given that it's obviously uncontroversial. I'm surprised that you have relisted it. Should I have put up a different type of request? You can reply here. Schwede 66 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As you said supremacy of formats, it goes: Test, ODI, first-class, List A, T20I, T20, but the international cricket includes only 3 format:Test ,ODIs,T20Is,after that any domestic format comes.international cricket has more priority that domestic cricket.Remeber a player calibre is known by its international record ,not by dumb domestic cricket including List a and first class matches.Remember. Refer to ICC and Cricinfo .Remember international is more important.dont go on huge waste figures data in domestic cricket. (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor barnstar |
For the amazing work at Lord's Pavilion !!! -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling.
KarlB (
talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just here to ask for details on why the page for the Swedish 'INGRID' art collective was deleted. The primary points were listed in the deletion log, but if specifics on what would constitute a suitable page on the subject (which includes several major musical artists, and with proper references etc. should most likely be deemed noteable), I would hope I could create a better and more suitable page. However, I don't want to just make the same mistakes as the previous author and cause nuisance. Any pointers appreciated. AmbroseCadwell ( talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the work you put into setting ATV Jordan right. BigNate37 (T) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenks, as RM-closer you should be aware of a possible oddity concerning two RMs you closed. It seems an IP has been setting up Miszabot archiving (itself no problem) in an unusual manner over several recent RMs:
In the second case had I, or other Users, been able to see User:Amore Mio's objections in RM1 then it is likely that there would have been oppose statements. But I am not asking for it to be reopened. This post is for info only, I am not requesting any action. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The auto archive bot issue has already been laughed out of town. If Prolog knew about page moves and couldn't be bothered to revert them, they can't be that big a deal. [5] He sure sounds ticked though. Maybe there is an article about Finland somewhere I can copyedit, or some other way to make nice to the guy. Kauffner ( talk) 11:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You already closed requested-moves for Para Dog-faced Bat and Southern Dog-faced Bat, this is the third. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
hello,
could you check whether the history of User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox14 could be merged with Pyramid of Neferefre? Thanks in advance. Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
— David Levy 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. That was sure a lot of fireworks. I guess I no longer have a clean wiki-record to boast of. As soon as I get over this flu, I expect to be once again doing my thing, either promoting the use of the English language, or oppressing black Eastern Europeans, depending on how you look it. Kauffner ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I insert unnecessary info there? Are there any more unnecessary info in Twitter section? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for moving White-lipped Peccary and Chacoan Peccary. Will you be fixing all the now-redirected links or will other users have to it? Outback the koala ( talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Jenks24
There hasn't been much discussion here and not any here, so should I proceed to make the changes (converting instances of "Russo–Turkish" into "Russo-Turkish", or is it customary to wait longer for a result to take shape / a consensus to be acted upon to emerge, and if so, how much longer?
Regards – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please revert your close of Talk:Jane Harrison (GC)? Mike Cline closed it yesterday, but reverted it on my request to get more input. I thought it would run for another week, not less than 24 hours.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24 I noticed the names of the candidates that Loxton stood against in all his elections were named except one, the election of 1961. This was an important election for Loxton and for Prahran due to the history made when an issue occurred at the ballot box (have a look at page and references) Hence i added the name of the candidate as i was currently making a page for them. Lgbtoz ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
How did you find no consensus to move Door furniture? Only one person opposed. Powers T 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Where was the clear consensus for the RM closure at Syrian Civil War? Considering there were editors who would not support a move without decapitalisation, I don't think it was as clear as you judged it to be. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a requested move
Talk:Silajit Majumder (this was my one of the very first requests), which ended with a "no consensus", later I found someone else has become
WP:BOLD and moved the article to proposed first name spelling!
I generally never move an article directly, the only reason I want to notify creator/primary contributors about the proposed move, which is not possible in direct move.
Recently you have closed this request as
Talk:Kalpana_Datta#Requested_move as no consensus. But, how that can be a "no consensus", see all the references and external links added in the article are using the proposed spelling. Anyway... I think someone will be
WP:BOLD and move the article directly in future (as it has happened few times before too).
And in such situation, what is the value of the previous request move's consensus (even if it is "no consensus", still it is a consensus)? The procedure should be changed– if a request of moving an article to a particular title has been rejected somehow, and later if anyone wants to do the the same move, (s)he has to discuss first and can't move directly!
In addition, I want to re-apply the move since all ref and ELs are using proposed spelling. But, I don't want to start move review, shall I request move again? --
Tito Dutta
✉ 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope next time there are more participants as that makes judging the consensus a lot easier.