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. |
Can you relist the discussion? Majority supported parenthetical disambiguation, while four opposed extra disambiguation. Period or no period, parenthetical disambiguation was favored. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain, thanks for your work on this. — AjaxSmack 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether you are willing to vote. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midwife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari ( talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could you please consider interceding on the Celtic languages article? A few editors, including the notorious troublemaker User:Kwamikagami, are edit warring with me in order to remove a perfectly accurate map of the modern Celtic countries with shaded regions for where Celtic languages are still actively spoken - all because one of these editors - who clearly doesn't have much knowledge of Celtic languages - said he didn't understand the map. This editor, User:Jeppiz has even reported me to WP for reverting the removal of the map. Cagwinn ( talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rastafari), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston. 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) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
John Carter ( talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The original Pictish language bears no connection with the later Brittonic dialects of Pictish at all. The original language was of Neolithic origin and what is known of its vocabulary is entirely different than Brythonic or Goidhelic! This has been proved by one with a degree in ancient languages. Also the case against non-Indo-European is error. If you have an issue with this, please leave a message on my talk page. Werdna Yrneh Yarg ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew
Cúchullain My due apologies for not clarifying the reference relating to the last clauses of the final sentence in the first paragraph of the Picts "spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brittonic language spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them."[1] An asterisk that I inserted to explain the difference between the earliest Pictish language and the more recent Brittonic one, was removed by 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'. So I scrolled down the edits until I found the UTC who added this reference. I was just scared that readers might assume that the original Pictish tribes also spoke an Iron Age Celtic dialect, because that would be error. For example, the words TAGONA (to be) and NAUKA (to possess) - almost synonymous with a totally unrelated language (to Celtic anyway) - Basque DAGO and NAUKA, are quite distinct from any part of the Celtic vocabulary. You would no doubt know that Ogham inscriptions were probably used on leather long before what is visible on stone. Werdna Yrneh Yarg ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew
Could you please take a look at TAFI. I have nominated both Gustaf and Bill Skarsgård. Could need some more input. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RM discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to central discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain.
Posting here to avoid the drama of an ANI thread. I just want an admin to look into a potential problem on a GAR, and you're the only admin I know who is impartial (I don't recall us ever actually agreeing on a content dispute outside of the Ugetsu Monogatari RM three years ago; I don't know if you have any history with the other party), not involved in any other dispute anyone else involved is currently marred in, and likely to act in good faith (don't ask...)
About a month ago, User:CurtisNaito and I were both placed under a moratorium by Dennis Brown ( here). We were told not to "push the boundaries of incivility, bludgeon discussions, violate WP:IDHT, act in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breach any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors" (emphasis mine). The result of a violation would be "either [Dennis Brown] or another admin should simply block[ing] for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks".
CurtisNaito has, I believe, engaged in the same kind of disruptive IDHT behaviour on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Japan/1 that led to the above numerous times since the moratorium, and has been called out for it by myself and several other users (these warnings were, ironically, ignored). He has been claiming that no one ever proved any sourcing problems with the article, that no edit-warring has taken place, that no editors have presented positive proposals for expanding the article, and so on, all of which are blatant IDHT.
Diffs are a bit hard for this, since the only way the diffs could be valid is if one looks at the background to see how they are IDHT, but the single worst example is probably the first one, and the most recent one (the one that has everyone annoyed at the moment) took place yesterday. Ctrl+F this page for the "IDHT" and you'll see him being called out by me, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey.
The CurtisNaito IDHT problem expands across about a half-dozen talk pages (all of which now have massive archives as a result) and was what led to what would otherwise seem like an overly harsh moratorium on such behaviour. I don't want to get into the details, but the moratorium and the recent edits should speak for themselves.
Sorry again for such a sudden, and likely burdensome request. And for such a long post. If you want to block me for bludgeoning your talk page, I understand, but I felt a thorough explanation was in order.
Best regards,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The case is now open. You seem to have been involved with Hijiri88 in the past, and I think any input you might see fit to offer about any of those involved, or about the nature of your prior interactions with any of those involved and perhaps any opinions you may have developed about them. John Carter ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It felt like the conversation was slapped so hard in the face that it was over. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy Hazouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page At Large. 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) 13:18, 19 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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you have moved the article Turks in Bulgari to Bulgarian Turks, based on talk page discussion there is no support for this. 3 support the move and 3 oppose the move 1 abstained. Could you revert back to original state. Hittit ( talk) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, after a lack of consensus as at Talk:Kwara#Requested move 27 October 2015, should not the outcome be to revert the move back to the status quo ante? – Fayenatic L ondon 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
When you rename articles related template functionality is broken. Those should be changed at the same time. You also seem to be randomly jumping all over the map. Please change one line, state or system at a time. That would facilitate repair work for those of us fixing things behind you. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please don't make controversial page moves without starting a requested move discussion first. As you're an administrator I won't go into detail as you should know better. Thanks Jeni ( talk) 11:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iceni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cladius. 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) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In closing this move request, you didn't seem to take into account my comments (which the nominator had accepted) that Cherry-picking (with a hyphen) would be a better target. I hope you'd reconsider. Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding your close of this discussion. You said, " It was also suggested below that the city may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Gifu, which would moot the issue in this particular case. There wasn't a consensus for that measure in this discussion..." Based on this comment, I have to question whether you read the discussion or not. Of the seven people participating in the discussion, there were initially two people who opposed the move and five who supported it. Of those, one of the opposes was me, and I suggested moving it to just "Gifu". The other oppose changed their mind and stated they supported moving it to just "Gifu". Of those supporting the move to "Gifu City", three of them indicated either that they preferred "Gifu" or that they would be fine with it. Based on this, I ask that you reconsider the discussion and consider the decision to move to Gifu instead. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would you mess about with my station renames, when your time could be better spent by dealing with the many other ones that need moved? The reason for using the Texas disambuation was to clearly indicate the station is neither of the ones in San Marcos, California. You may be technically correct, but that is unproductive. There is also no need to create a disambiguation page for only two articles when a hatnote would suffice. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Enough of my whining. I need your help as an admin. Texarkana (Amtrak station) should probably be moved to the historic name of Union Station (Texarkana) under the naming covention - and just simply because it predates Amtrak. I think that is preferable to Texarkana Union Station, but you will advise about that. Secondarywaltz ( talk)
I am rather concerned by your closure of this move request and decision to move to the Spanish name. Looking at the strength of argument to move to the Spanish name, I see very little logical argument and a lot of emotive posturing about the Spanish name. It had to be relisted several times before getting any votes in support and came a few months after a none controversial move back to the original article name and the name commonly used in the English language. I don't see a concrete consensus in support of this move request and I would venture to suggest if anything it should have closed as a no consensus to move. W C M email 18:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemper Street Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal. 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) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Read this unfinished article. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Cuchullain.
Please don't take offense, but per WP:RM#Steps to list a new review request, step 1, I question your close on the Talk:Dale Earnhardt, Jr.#Requested move 30 December 2015 by contacting you.
The reasons why I question the close is the following:
So, what do you think?
Regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You were involved in original discussion. [1] Koncorde ( talk) 09:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd JUST redid the entire page to reflect all of the changes, and now it's all lost. I'd left a note for a full day in case anyone had anything to say. I wish someone would have offered some opinion before hand instead of literally in the middle of my switch over. I also object to the change. Regardless of what is most common, the official name by CATA is how I had it. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for putting up with me this morning. I'd practically been waiting for this facility to open, so when everyone rushed in, I didn't quite know what to do. Criticalthinker ( talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
References for Leavenworth station seem to call it "Icicle Station". Secondarywaltz ( talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It have no verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldhorajan92 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (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. |
Can you relist the discussion? Majority supported parenthetical disambiguation, while four opposed extra disambiguation. Period or no period, parenthetical disambiguation was favored. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain, thanks for your work on this. — AjaxSmack 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether you are willing to vote. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midwife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari ( talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could you please consider interceding on the Celtic languages article? A few editors, including the notorious troublemaker User:Kwamikagami, are edit warring with me in order to remove a perfectly accurate map of the modern Celtic countries with shaded regions for where Celtic languages are still actively spoken - all because one of these editors - who clearly doesn't have much knowledge of Celtic languages - said he didn't understand the map. This editor, User:Jeppiz has even reported me to WP for reverting the removal of the map. Cagwinn ( talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rastafari), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston. 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) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
John Carter ( talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The original Pictish language bears no connection with the later Brittonic dialects of Pictish at all. The original language was of Neolithic origin and what is known of its vocabulary is entirely different than Brythonic or Goidhelic! This has been proved by one with a degree in ancient languages. Also the case against non-Indo-European is error. If you have an issue with this, please leave a message on my talk page. Werdna Yrneh Yarg ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew
Cúchullain My due apologies for not clarifying the reference relating to the last clauses of the final sentence in the first paragraph of the Picts "spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brittonic language spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them."[1] An asterisk that I inserted to explain the difference between the earliest Pictish language and the more recent Brittonic one, was removed by 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'. So I scrolled down the edits until I found the UTC who added this reference. I was just scared that readers might assume that the original Pictish tribes also spoke an Iron Age Celtic dialect, because that would be error. For example, the words TAGONA (to be) and NAUKA (to possess) - almost synonymous with a totally unrelated language (to Celtic anyway) - Basque DAGO and NAUKA, are quite distinct from any part of the Celtic vocabulary. You would no doubt know that Ogham inscriptions were probably used on leather long before what is visible on stone. Werdna Yrneh Yarg ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew
Could you please take a look at TAFI. I have nominated both Gustaf and Bill Skarsgård. Could need some more input. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RM discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to central discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain.
Posting here to avoid the drama of an ANI thread. I just want an admin to look into a potential problem on a GAR, and you're the only admin I know who is impartial (I don't recall us ever actually agreeing on a content dispute outside of the Ugetsu Monogatari RM three years ago; I don't know if you have any history with the other party), not involved in any other dispute anyone else involved is currently marred in, and likely to act in good faith (don't ask...)
About a month ago, User:CurtisNaito and I were both placed under a moratorium by Dennis Brown ( here). We were told not to "push the boundaries of incivility, bludgeon discussions, violate WP:IDHT, act in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breach any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors" (emphasis mine). The result of a violation would be "either [Dennis Brown] or another admin should simply block[ing] for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks".
CurtisNaito has, I believe, engaged in the same kind of disruptive IDHT behaviour on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Japan/1 that led to the above numerous times since the moratorium, and has been called out for it by myself and several other users (these warnings were, ironically, ignored). He has been claiming that no one ever proved any sourcing problems with the article, that no edit-warring has taken place, that no editors have presented positive proposals for expanding the article, and so on, all of which are blatant IDHT.
Diffs are a bit hard for this, since the only way the diffs could be valid is if one looks at the background to see how they are IDHT, but the single worst example is probably the first one, and the most recent one (the one that has everyone annoyed at the moment) took place yesterday. Ctrl+F this page for the "IDHT" and you'll see him being called out by me, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey.
The CurtisNaito IDHT problem expands across about a half-dozen talk pages (all of which now have massive archives as a result) and was what led to what would otherwise seem like an overly harsh moratorium on such behaviour. I don't want to get into the details, but the moratorium and the recent edits should speak for themselves.
Sorry again for such a sudden, and likely burdensome request. And for such a long post. If you want to block me for bludgeoning your talk page, I understand, but I felt a thorough explanation was in order.
Best regards,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The case is now open. You seem to have been involved with Hijiri88 in the past, and I think any input you might see fit to offer about any of those involved, or about the nature of your prior interactions with any of those involved and perhaps any opinions you may have developed about them. John Carter ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It felt like the conversation was slapped so hard in the face that it was over. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy Hazouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page At Large. 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) 13:18, 19 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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you have moved the article Turks in Bulgari to Bulgarian Turks, based on talk page discussion there is no support for this. 3 support the move and 3 oppose the move 1 abstained. Could you revert back to original state. Hittit ( talk) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, after a lack of consensus as at Talk:Kwara#Requested move 27 October 2015, should not the outcome be to revert the move back to the status quo ante? – Fayenatic L ondon 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
When you rename articles related template functionality is broken. Those should be changed at the same time. You also seem to be randomly jumping all over the map. Please change one line, state or system at a time. That would facilitate repair work for those of us fixing things behind you. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please don't make controversial page moves without starting a requested move discussion first. As you're an administrator I won't go into detail as you should know better. Thanks Jeni ( talk) 11:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iceni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cladius. 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) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In closing this move request, you didn't seem to take into account my comments (which the nominator had accepted) that Cherry-picking (with a hyphen) would be a better target. I hope you'd reconsider. Thanks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding your close of this discussion. You said, " It was also suggested below that the city may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Gifu, which would moot the issue in this particular case. There wasn't a consensus for that measure in this discussion..." Based on this comment, I have to question whether you read the discussion or not. Of the seven people participating in the discussion, there were initially two people who opposed the move and five who supported it. Of those, one of the opposes was me, and I suggested moving it to just "Gifu". The other oppose changed their mind and stated they supported moving it to just "Gifu". Of those supporting the move to "Gifu City", three of them indicated either that they preferred "Gifu" or that they would be fine with it. Based on this, I ask that you reconsider the discussion and consider the decision to move to Gifu instead. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would you mess about with my station renames, when your time could be better spent by dealing with the many other ones that need moved? The reason for using the Texas disambuation was to clearly indicate the station is neither of the ones in San Marcos, California. You may be technically correct, but that is unproductive. There is also no need to create a disambiguation page for only two articles when a hatnote would suffice. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Enough of my whining. I need your help as an admin. Texarkana (Amtrak station) should probably be moved to the historic name of Union Station (Texarkana) under the naming covention - and just simply because it predates Amtrak. I think that is preferable to Texarkana Union Station, but you will advise about that. Secondarywaltz ( talk)
I am rather concerned by your closure of this move request and decision to move to the Spanish name. Looking at the strength of argument to move to the Spanish name, I see very little logical argument and a lot of emotive posturing about the Spanish name. It had to be relisted several times before getting any votes in support and came a few months after a none controversial move back to the original article name and the name commonly used in the English language. I don't see a concrete consensus in support of this move request and I would venture to suggest if anything it should have closed as a no consensus to move. W C M email 18:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemper Street Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal. 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) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Read this unfinished article. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Cuchullain.
Please don't take offense, but per WP:RM#Steps to list a new review request, step 1, I question your close on the Talk:Dale Earnhardt, Jr.#Requested move 30 December 2015 by contacting you.
The reasons why I question the close is the following:
So, what do you think?
Regards
HandsomeFella ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You were involved in original discussion. [1] Koncorde ( talk) 09:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd JUST redid the entire page to reflect all of the changes, and now it's all lost. I'd left a note for a full day in case anyone had anything to say. I wish someone would have offered some opinion before hand instead of literally in the middle of my switch over. I also object to the change. Regardless of what is most common, the official name by CATA is how I had it. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for putting up with me this morning. I'd practically been waiting for this facility to open, so when everyone rushed in, I didn't quite know what to do. Criticalthinker ( talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
References for Leavenworth station seem to call it "Icicle Station". Secondarywaltz ( talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It have no verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldhorajan92 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)