This page 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
S Marshall, thank you for your detailed analysis of the RfC at Talk:Michael Flynn. Appreciate the big effort! starship .paint ( talk) 09:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
That sockpuppet had also created an earlier RfC on the same page. The RfC has been closed, but the motivation and framing given in it are similarly suspect, as I documented further down on that page, following up on a suggestion by Nil Einne.
Would you deem it proper, for archival and reference purposes, to put a hatnote atop that RfC to indicate something like "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. Reasons to doubt the intentions of the proposer and the framing of this RfC are documented here"? Humanengr ( talk) 05:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for closing what turned out to be a difficult and complex RfC (despite a simple yes/no question being asked). The thought you put into it is appreciated. However, I do have one niggle. I don't think it was reasonable of you, as the closer, to imply that the guideline should not be amended. The entire premise of the RfC was that the guideline should be amended and its purpose was to determine what the position of the guideline should be. I explicitly stated that in my opening remarks and I don't believe that anyone in the discussion took issue with it. I think the expectation is that the RfC will result in an explicit mention in the guideline. Spinning Spark 10:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall - I don't like being the one to challenge your close of the Biden article because you know how much I respect your views, and appreciate the fact that you took on such a difficult close, but there are some rather important issues that need to be addressed. I know we don't count iVotes, but it should be noted that (by my count) there were 18 yes include (w/options for alt wording), and 12 no include (w/no options for alt wording). That is a stark difference. For one thing, the opposes were based on questionable POV opinion, which includes comments like the details of a victim's sexual assault allegations were insignificant. As a female editor, I consider such a comment representative of WP's systemic bias and possibly even censorship. In fact, some of the oppose arguments raised a few brows, including "covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede" - the lede is a summary of what's in the body, and MOSLEAD says we include controversies - and other comments like "...no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article" when the article is 5565 words. Subtract 2 more from the 12 no include = 10 unconvincing arguments to not include; however, when you combine the yes include options, it becomes clear that consensus tells us the content should be included in the lead without the graphic detail.
The "keep" arguments included alternatives to the wording and were based primarily on our PAGs, including DUE, NOTCENSORED, NPOV, MOSLEAD. The scope of the RfC itself was ...how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. There was no argument about its inclusion but you made the determination in your close that the allegation itself does not belong in the lead when you said I find that the status quo ante is not to include the disputed content. I don't know how you arrived at your conclusion based on the presented arguments, and I disagree with your closing statement that Predictably, there is no consensus about whether to put the graphic details front and centre. I believe your close goes beyond the scope of the RfC. The word "content" is too broad a term when the dispute was only about certain details of the content, not the sexual assault allegation itself which would be considered "the content". Your close prevents alternative wording and the controversy itself from being included in the lead which is noncompliant with our PAGs per MOSLEAD, NPOV, and NOTCENSORED. I would appreciate your input. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
18 editors supported including graphic details about the sexual assault allegation in the lead while 13 editors were opposed to details beyond saying "sexually assaulted," which equates to a percentage of 58% to 42%. AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall - I have the perfect excuse to drop by and say Hi, how are you? And btw, what was the final result of my query? Did consensus agree with your close as is? Sorry for the ping but this is a relatively stale discussion, and I thought you may not see it without being pinged, or am I the only one who has that problem. Atsme Talk 📧 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
As the original AfD was completed before the person became the won the nominee election and the GNG-passing coverage (as with the first DRV), this topic will most certainly be revisited. Could this simply be re-listed? Oakshade ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's shocking that your recent closure of the RfC about the lede of colleges and universities completely ignored the core policy of WP:RS by disallowing editors from including information from even the highest quality reliable sources. It's also a misapplication and misunderstanding of WP:NPOV as that policy requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and an RfC cannot overturn a core policy. I'm afraid that your close, while well-intentioned, is contrary to our core policies and therefore makes this issue even more confusing and contentious. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
First, thank you for putting in the work to close this discussion. It is, as with all your closes, clearly thoroughly considered. However, I have to disagree with your closing rationale, which I'll address in two regards.
First, you write that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.
Regards, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I've made a formal request at WP:AN to review this closure. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
1Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet
(Perhaps you'd prefer a nice cuppa and some biscuits instead? But then I couldn't have used the Mamet line. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC))
Thought I would mention that when you said: "I have never edited an article in this topic area, but on two occasions five or six years ago, I did close RfCs relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict: here and here. I am confident that I am sufficiently neutral and uninvolved to be able to assess the consensus here objectively." you appear to have overlooked your 2019 close here. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Really good job closing a difficult and complex RfC. —valereee ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi -- thanks for closing the manual of style RfC about "is" vs. "was". I see you close a lot of RfCs, and would like to understand the close better -- or perhaps understand how you (or anyone) goes about a close in a situation like this. I'm the one who started the RfC, but I don't have a lot of experience in closing them. I understand that they're not votes, but I was a bit surprised that in the absence of a policy, a clear majority of opinions in one direction does not make a difference. It seems to me about two-thirds of those commenting expressed a preference for "was" (for printed matter) but that there was no majority in favour of "was" or "is" for TV shows. Without a policy to refer to, how do you decide when an RfC's majority actually counts towards the decision? Was it just that two-thirds is not enough, or is there some principle here that I'm not aware of? And I'm not complaining about your close -- I appreciate the work you put in on closing RfCs, and I'm fine with not getting the outcome I was hoping for. I just would like to get some insight into the process. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If you believe some types of periodical should use "was" and the others should use "is", please make that clear in your response.makes clear that the RfC wasn't trying to gain consensus on the exact guideline that was proposed, but rather gauging consensus on the guideline generally while making clear some topics could be exceptions. I hope you will review your close in light of this, and implement a guideline for the topics where you found a consensus, or make clear that you didn't find a consensus for specific guidelines. I believe the two major ways this broke were printed periodicals and television. It's a difficult close, but taking it as a one-size-fits-all isn't making anyone happy. SportingFlyer T· C 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Some comments: the original no consensus based on the RFC as it actually occurred was obviously correct, and retroactively whittling away parts to arrive at the consensus-for-periodicals declaration is a mistake. The appeals above are arguably an abuse of process. The RFC was messy because those in favor of "was" allowed/encouraged it into that state, to their benefit.
Feedback above notwithstanding, the relevant policy is and always has been Wikipedia's policy on consensus, as I pointed out in the discussion. Throughout the discussion, the "was" camp sought to frame it instead to be decided as if by popular referendum—but it is explicitly not that. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
(From
WP:CONSENSUS.) Much of the participation by those who showed up falls in the latter category, offering very little besides their drive-by "votes".
The soundness of the no consensus decision can further be seen in the evidence that most of those "voting" for "was" and who do offer an argument don't even agree amongst themselves—there is no care care for "the quality of the argument", they've a priori arrived at the desired "was", and have backfilled a justification for it—even where it contradicts the justification that others supporting "was" have selected, or their very own responses within the same discussion.
I called many, many times throughout both attempts at this discussion for establishing a rubric, precisely to prevent what's going on here now. -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Thavet Atlas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Passes CSD A7: indicates that their works were nominated for or received awards, which could indicate importance or significance. Although A7 is not about notability, see also WP:ANYBIO #1, WP:NPOET #4. Thank you. -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey SM, thanks for all your good work. Hoping I can ask a quick favor: when you move articles to the draft namespace because they are not quite "ready for prime time", please, please comment out the categories that those articles are in as well, since drafts should not be in mainspace categories. There is a draftifying script you can use that does that automatically, or you can comment them out in a subsequent edit; ping me back if you need help with either approach. Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Cabayi ( talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You've recently performed quite a few draftifications with the edit summary, " Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017", but that page doesn't provide any explanation about the task, nor is there an approachable summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT. Could you provide a brief explanation in the edit summary? Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came across one of these moves in a WikiProject request to improve a particular article. I was confused by the edit summary in the move since it linked to the massive list, but the article moved was not present. It looked to be the case for several of these, then I realized that you were deleting items from the list as you moved them. Because this isn't immediately apparent, may I suggest striking through the pages moved as opposed to outright deletion? It might make things clearer to people investigating why a page was draftified. Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 17:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to ask for an opinion on the article: Arab Christians. A user continues to delete sources without having obtained consensus to do so. I don't want an edit war. What do you advise me to do? Syphax98 ( talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is inappropriate to refer to a woman as "this lady" as you did when AfD-ing the bio of Margarita Brender Rubira. Similarly, referring to a man as "this gentleman" implies (to a native speaker of American English) irony, condescension, and even contempt. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
S, as an American, please let me assure you that this is not any kind of AmEng thing. This is just one person's opinion. We say "this lady" and "this gentlemen" all the time, and it's not condescending or anything other than polite. (E.g., "please show this gentleman to his table".) Same exact meaning on both sides of the pond. Levivich dubious – discuss 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Was the upper part of this diff intentional? (Meant for somewhere else?) -- Izno ( talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I've always be wary of the many relative newcomers whose focus is ostensibly on talk pages where they make sweeping statements and on noticeboards where they throw their weight around rather than contribute to building the corpus. I'm glad I'm out of this circus that I was stupidly passionate about for 14 years, but whatever... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
How can I get a backup of the last version of this article before deletion in my user page? - PeterBraun74 ( talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
S Marshall, thank you for your detailed analysis of the RfC at Talk:Michael Flynn. Appreciate the big effort! starship .paint ( talk) 09:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
That sockpuppet had also created an earlier RfC on the same page. The RfC has been closed, but the motivation and framing given in it are similarly suspect, as I documented further down on that page, following up on a suggestion by Nil Einne.
Would you deem it proper, for archival and reference purposes, to put a hatnote atop that RfC to indicate something like "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. Reasons to doubt the intentions of the proposer and the framing of this RfC are documented here"? Humanengr ( talk) 05:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for closing what turned out to be a difficult and complex RfC (despite a simple yes/no question being asked). The thought you put into it is appreciated. However, I do have one niggle. I don't think it was reasonable of you, as the closer, to imply that the guideline should not be amended. The entire premise of the RfC was that the guideline should be amended and its purpose was to determine what the position of the guideline should be. I explicitly stated that in my opening remarks and I don't believe that anyone in the discussion took issue with it. I think the expectation is that the RfC will result in an explicit mention in the guideline. Spinning Spark 10:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall - I don't like being the one to challenge your close of the Biden article because you know how much I respect your views, and appreciate the fact that you took on such a difficult close, but there are some rather important issues that need to be addressed. I know we don't count iVotes, but it should be noted that (by my count) there were 18 yes include (w/options for alt wording), and 12 no include (w/no options for alt wording). That is a stark difference. For one thing, the opposes were based on questionable POV opinion, which includes comments like the details of a victim's sexual assault allegations were insignificant. As a female editor, I consider such a comment representative of WP's systemic bias and possibly even censorship. In fact, some of the oppose arguments raised a few brows, including "covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede" - the lede is a summary of what's in the body, and MOSLEAD says we include controversies - and other comments like "...no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article" when the article is 5565 words. Subtract 2 more from the 12 no include = 10 unconvincing arguments to not include; however, when you combine the yes include options, it becomes clear that consensus tells us the content should be included in the lead without the graphic detail.
The "keep" arguments included alternatives to the wording and were based primarily on our PAGs, including DUE, NOTCENSORED, NPOV, MOSLEAD. The scope of the RfC itself was ...how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. There was no argument about its inclusion but you made the determination in your close that the allegation itself does not belong in the lead when you said I find that the status quo ante is not to include the disputed content. I don't know how you arrived at your conclusion based on the presented arguments, and I disagree with your closing statement that Predictably, there is no consensus about whether to put the graphic details front and centre. I believe your close goes beyond the scope of the RfC. The word "content" is too broad a term when the dispute was only about certain details of the content, not the sexual assault allegation itself which would be considered "the content". Your close prevents alternative wording and the controversy itself from being included in the lead which is noncompliant with our PAGs per MOSLEAD, NPOV, and NOTCENSORED. I would appreciate your input. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
18 editors supported including graphic details about the sexual assault allegation in the lead while 13 editors were opposed to details beyond saying "sexually assaulted," which equates to a percentage of 58% to 42%. AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall - I have the perfect excuse to drop by and say Hi, how are you? And btw, what was the final result of my query? Did consensus agree with your close as is? Sorry for the ping but this is a relatively stale discussion, and I thought you may not see it without being pinged, or am I the only one who has that problem. Atsme Talk 📧 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
As the original AfD was completed before the person became the won the nominee election and the GNG-passing coverage (as with the first DRV), this topic will most certainly be revisited. Could this simply be re-listed? Oakshade ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's shocking that your recent closure of the RfC about the lede of colleges and universities completely ignored the core policy of WP:RS by disallowing editors from including information from even the highest quality reliable sources. It's also a misapplication and misunderstanding of WP:NPOV as that policy requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and an RfC cannot overturn a core policy. I'm afraid that your close, while well-intentioned, is contrary to our core policies and therefore makes this issue even more confusing and contentious. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
First, thank you for putting in the work to close this discussion. It is, as with all your closes, clearly thoroughly considered. However, I have to disagree with your closing rationale, which I'll address in two regards.
First, you write that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.
Regards, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I've made a formal request at WP:AN to review this closure. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
1Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet
(Perhaps you'd prefer a nice cuppa and some biscuits instead? But then I couldn't have used the Mamet line. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC))
Thought I would mention that when you said: "I have never edited an article in this topic area, but on two occasions five or six years ago, I did close RfCs relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict: here and here. I am confident that I am sufficiently neutral and uninvolved to be able to assess the consensus here objectively." you appear to have overlooked your 2019 close here. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Really good job closing a difficult and complex RfC. —valereee ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi -- thanks for closing the manual of style RfC about "is" vs. "was". I see you close a lot of RfCs, and would like to understand the close better -- or perhaps understand how you (or anyone) goes about a close in a situation like this. I'm the one who started the RfC, but I don't have a lot of experience in closing them. I understand that they're not votes, but I was a bit surprised that in the absence of a policy, a clear majority of opinions in one direction does not make a difference. It seems to me about two-thirds of those commenting expressed a preference for "was" (for printed matter) but that there was no majority in favour of "was" or "is" for TV shows. Without a policy to refer to, how do you decide when an RfC's majority actually counts towards the decision? Was it just that two-thirds is not enough, or is there some principle here that I'm not aware of? And I'm not complaining about your close -- I appreciate the work you put in on closing RfCs, and I'm fine with not getting the outcome I was hoping for. I just would like to get some insight into the process. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If you believe some types of periodical should use "was" and the others should use "is", please make that clear in your response.makes clear that the RfC wasn't trying to gain consensus on the exact guideline that was proposed, but rather gauging consensus on the guideline generally while making clear some topics could be exceptions. I hope you will review your close in light of this, and implement a guideline for the topics where you found a consensus, or make clear that you didn't find a consensus for specific guidelines. I believe the two major ways this broke were printed periodicals and television. It's a difficult close, but taking it as a one-size-fits-all isn't making anyone happy. SportingFlyer T· C 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Some comments: the original no consensus based on the RFC as it actually occurred was obviously correct, and retroactively whittling away parts to arrive at the consensus-for-periodicals declaration is a mistake. The appeals above are arguably an abuse of process. The RFC was messy because those in favor of "was" allowed/encouraged it into that state, to their benefit.
Feedback above notwithstanding, the relevant policy is and always has been Wikipedia's policy on consensus, as I pointed out in the discussion. Throughout the discussion, the "was" camp sought to frame it instead to be decided as if by popular referendum—but it is explicitly not that. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
(From
WP:CONSENSUS.) Much of the participation by those who showed up falls in the latter category, offering very little besides their drive-by "votes".
The soundness of the no consensus decision can further be seen in the evidence that most of those "voting" for "was" and who do offer an argument don't even agree amongst themselves—there is no care care for "the quality of the argument", they've a priori arrived at the desired "was", and have backfilled a justification for it—even where it contradicts the justification that others supporting "was" have selected, or their very own responses within the same discussion.
I called many, many times throughout both attempts at this discussion for establishing a rubric, precisely to prevent what's going on here now. -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Thavet Atlas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Passes CSD A7: indicates that their works were nominated for or received awards, which could indicate importance or significance. Although A7 is not about notability, see also WP:ANYBIO #1, WP:NPOET #4. Thank you. -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey SM, thanks for all your good work. Hoping I can ask a quick favor: when you move articles to the draft namespace because they are not quite "ready for prime time", please, please comment out the categories that those articles are in as well, since drafts should not be in mainspace categories. There is a draftifying script you can use that does that automatically, or you can comment them out in a subsequent edit; ping me back if you need help with either approach. Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Cabayi ( talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You've recently performed quite a few draftifications with the edit summary, " Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017", but that page doesn't provide any explanation about the task, nor is there an approachable summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT. Could you provide a brief explanation in the edit summary? Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came across one of these moves in a WikiProject request to improve a particular article. I was confused by the edit summary in the move since it linked to the massive list, but the article moved was not present. It looked to be the case for several of these, then I realized that you were deleting items from the list as you moved them. Because this isn't immediately apparent, may I suggest striking through the pages moved as opposed to outright deletion? It might make things clearer to people investigating why a page was draftified. Thanks, 2pou ( talk) 17:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to ask for an opinion on the article: Arab Christians. A user continues to delete sources without having obtained consensus to do so. I don't want an edit war. What do you advise me to do? Syphax98 ( talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is inappropriate to refer to a woman as "this lady" as you did when AfD-ing the bio of Margarita Brender Rubira. Similarly, referring to a man as "this gentleman" implies (to a native speaker of American English) irony, condescension, and even contempt. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
S, as an American, please let me assure you that this is not any kind of AmEng thing. This is just one person's opinion. We say "this lady" and "this gentlemen" all the time, and it's not condescending or anything other than polite. (E.g., "please show this gentleman to his table".) Same exact meaning on both sides of the pond. Levivich dubious – discuss 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Was the upper part of this diff intentional? (Meant for somewhere else?) -- Izno ( talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I've always be wary of the many relative newcomers whose focus is ostensibly on talk pages where they make sweeping statements and on noticeboards where they throw their weight around rather than contribute to building the corpus. I'm glad I'm out of this circus that I was stupidly passionate about for 14 years, but whatever... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
How can I get a backup of the last version of this article before deletion in my user page? - PeterBraun74 ( talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)