|
|
Hi, some of the talk pages are now associated with the wrong pages. I’m glad to move them, but I’m not starting unilaterally to avoid conflicts in case you’re already on it. See:
— Michael Z. 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for being the closer of the RM. I'll note that part of the closing duties would be to update the incoming links [1] and create a new 2-item dabpage at Sebastian Aho. 162 etc. ( talk) 21:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It has been done :) I did the initial retargeting, but left the rest for you. Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that the closure of this move discussion as "no consensus" was erroneous. Of the participants who registered an opinion, seven (including the nominator) agreed with the proposed title, versus three opposed. A majority greater than 2 to 1 would normally demonstrate consensus, since it proves that the overwhelming majority of participants both disagree with the current title, and agree on the best alternative. Each reason given in the rationale for closing as "no consensus" effectively agrees with the minority position, even though in each instance two thirds of the participants refuted the reasons given by those opposed to the move. The result of the closure is that the article stays at a title that the majority of participants feel is unacceptable, instead of moving to a title that the majority of participants agreed on... this result seems absurd. What justification is there for maintaining the status quo when it represents only a small minority of the opinions? It reads as if those opposing the move automatically prevail, as long as they present a cogent argument. Surely the threshold for achieving consensus as to the best title cannot be that high. P Aculeius ( talk) 03:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you describe your closure here?
The consensus was against any move, let alone any "rough consensus to move". The non-argument that "term "Saffron terror" was also used to refer to Buddhist terrorism
" is not supported by any scholarly source. "that "Hindu terrorism" was a smear term advanced by the BJP
" hasn't been disputed because there are no reliable sources that have used this term as the main topic before promotion of this term by BJP.
It is impossible at this stage not to think that you have imposed your WP:SUPERVOTE.
I urge you to undo your page move and let some admin close it. Capitals00 ( talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
not supported by any scholarly source". This article was published by GQ Magazine and it is not a scholarly source. It is from 2015 and has failed to convince any scholarly source to make such a connection. It will take good dozens of scholarly sources before even thinking of such a connection.
"in use (as a main subject)"even mean? A term is first used when a term is first used, and the first use of this term was definitively and demonstrably not in BJP smear campaigns in the 21st century. The 1946 speech by Mohammad Jinnah using the term is alone strewn across at least half a dozen 20th-century sources, and that's just a single usage. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
evaluat[e] their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and use that evaluation as the basis for their findings. This will, at times, lead to results where the consensus diverges from the numerical majority opinion – particularly when the majority is a narrow one, as it was here. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
dozens of scholarly sourceswas never raised or discussed in the RM discussion itself, so naturally it did not feature in my close. Similarly, the claim that "Hindu terrorism" must be a
main subjectof a source was not made in the RM either.Additionally, as a clarifying note: twice now, you've emphasized my usage of the phrasing "rough consensus" in my closing statement. The definition of "rough consensus" I use is the one from the last sentence of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, namely:
Sometimes the term rough consensus is used to indicate a slight consensus, and the term clear consensus is used to indicate an obvious consensus.Accordingly, my usage of "rough consensus" is meant to indicate my stance that, while I did ultimately find a consensus (by examining and appraising the range of arguments made in the RM discussion itself, as discussed in my closing statement), I also wanted to make clear that it was a close call. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Opponents of the move largely sought to criticize the proposed title, "Hindu terrorism", rather than to give affirmative cases for retaining "Saffron terror"' is perplexing, because that is exactly what the opponents are supposed to do. It is not a vote between multiple equally-qualified options. If there is no consensus to move, the current title stands by default, good or bad as it may be. Nowhere does WP:RMCOMMENT state that the present page title needs to be defended in a move discussion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I started a thread on WP:AN. See here, it is about this closure. Capitals00 ( talk) 23:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The part about Groove Music/Media Player (2022) in the Windows Media Player article hopes that you can help update Groove Music is not exclusive to Windows 10. Windows 11 was also built in and was replaced by Media Player (2022) after 2022. And 2023 At that time, Media Player (2022) has also replaced Groove Music in Windows 10. I hope you can help rewrite part of the description in the Windows Media Player article that mentions Groove Music/Media Player (2022). 2401:E180:8800:F5B5:3C22:C096:500E:CC5E ( talk) 17:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The top hit I get at Google is this one. As I said, too generic a name and too recently notable for one specific thing. I'm requesting you re-open the discussion, so I can bring this evidence. Srnec ( talk) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ModernDayTrilobite. 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 a 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! Primefac ( talk) 07:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask for your help in with the weak supervision page. I think the current setup is confusing. I don't really understand how to demerge the page or what the process is for doing so. Could you point me in the right direction? -- Genusfour ( talk) 08:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ModernDayTrilobite,
When you do a page move, if you are leaving a redirect for the article/main page, could you leave one also for the Talk page? Otherwise, we end up with a lot of broken redirect Talk pages that need to be deleted or fixed. If you just move a page and leave a redirect at the same time (which I think you should do in most cases), then it doesn't require any extra work by an editor or admin to correct. Please consider doing this in the future in order not to create extra work. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(a couple months later...)
Hi MDT. If you'd like, there is a newer pageswap script, User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap, that adds talk page redirects such as this automatically (among other new features). SilverLocust 💬 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I see that you have acted as closer for the move discussion at
Talk:Mughalsarai Junction railway station#Requested move 23 June 2023. In many ways your summary is admirable, but it is also incomplete. You wrote I found that the supporters of the move had a stronger body of additional arguments.
Please could you add a summary of those "stronger... additional arguments". --
Toddy1
(talk) 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Unlike for a locality or a landmark where vernacular usage carries much more weight, this is primarily an official establishment where official naming by its owner does matter a lot. On the whole, the official-name argument seemed in keeping with the spirit of the WP:CRITERIA, had a variety of proponents, and does not appear to have been disputed except along the inconclusive COMMONNAME grounds, so I lent it a fair amount of weight.
Can you please undo your closure and relist this discussion? There were only two other participants, which is not what would normally constitute a consensus. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Your ridiculous closure/conclusion re hyphen vs. ndash recently in the title name form, when the MoS is clear, the counter is not COMMONAME it is random & thoughtless & inconsistent book font publisher applications that you and others want to twist to interpret to support COMMONAME. I am not going to try to argue w/ your ridiculous conclusion nor respond here if you do. And I will not enter wikilawyering w/ an appeal. But I will protest in the only way I can ... Hope your decision was worth it. Hello & bye. -- IHTS ( talk) 03:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
random & thoughtless, the result is still that the hyphen was widely used in sources, and that usage (regardless of motive) was what undergirded the COMMONNAME argument.In any case, the hyphen/dash question occupied relatively little space in the overall RM, and consensus can change. Once the dust has had some time to settle, a follow-up discussion that focuses specifically on the hyphen/dash issue could be worthwhile. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this closure, there was burden of proof within those users who oppose it. Because, unless (that's a big unless) there is "overwhelming" sources to demonstrate a consistent variant style, the MOS should be followed. You said there's no consensus, which means they have NOT provided overwhelming evidence for their claim. Then how can you still keep that name? Since this was a special case and an admin's role was discussed, the call should have been taken by an admin. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
the most recent prior stable titleshould be retained. The pre-RM title here had been stable for over a year, and no argument was ever made against its stability, so there's no cause to move the article in a no-consensus situation. Second, per WP:RMNAC, non-admins are not just allowed but
encouraged to close requested move discussionsif they are knowledgeable in matters of titling policy, so there's no basis to the claim that "the call should have been taken by an admin". ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of R Praggnanandhaa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
You recently closed a move request I started at Talk:Ohio Xoggz#Requested move 16 September 2023. You wrote: "The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants did not feel that the "Columbus Xoggz" name had attained sufficient notability to override the general practice of preferring the final name of defunct organizations."
I don't agree with this close, and your closing message doesn't seem to match what was actually said in the discussion. There was one short oppose message (which did not address the notability of the Columbus Xoggz name at all), and then one message which seemed to support the move, as it gave an example of another article which is known by a name other than its final name. I think the discussion should be re-opened. Could you explain your thoughts? Thanks, IagoQnsi ( talk) 07:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Lady Six Monkey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
On 25 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lady Six Monkey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lady Six Monkey was the only one of her four siblings not to be sacrificed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Six Monkey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Lady Six Monkey), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 16,952 views (706.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Dantus21 ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Dantus21 ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello ModernDayTrilobite, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing ( talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
On 13 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Upano Valley sites, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk ( talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
Hi, some of the talk pages are now associated with the wrong pages. I’m glad to move them, but I’m not starting unilaterally to avoid conflicts in case you’re already on it. See:
— Michael Z. 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for being the closer of the RM. I'll note that part of the closing duties would be to update the incoming links [1] and create a new 2-item dabpage at Sebastian Aho. 162 etc. ( talk) 21:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It has been done :) I did the initial retargeting, but left the rest for you. Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that the closure of this move discussion as "no consensus" was erroneous. Of the participants who registered an opinion, seven (including the nominator) agreed with the proposed title, versus three opposed. A majority greater than 2 to 1 would normally demonstrate consensus, since it proves that the overwhelming majority of participants both disagree with the current title, and agree on the best alternative. Each reason given in the rationale for closing as "no consensus" effectively agrees with the minority position, even though in each instance two thirds of the participants refuted the reasons given by those opposed to the move. The result of the closure is that the article stays at a title that the majority of participants feel is unacceptable, instead of moving to a title that the majority of participants agreed on... this result seems absurd. What justification is there for maintaining the status quo when it represents only a small minority of the opinions? It reads as if those opposing the move automatically prevail, as long as they present a cogent argument. Surely the threshold for achieving consensus as to the best title cannot be that high. P Aculeius ( talk) 03:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you describe your closure here?
The consensus was against any move, let alone any "rough consensus to move". The non-argument that "term "Saffron terror" was also used to refer to Buddhist terrorism
" is not supported by any scholarly source. "that "Hindu terrorism" was a smear term advanced by the BJP
" hasn't been disputed because there are no reliable sources that have used this term as the main topic before promotion of this term by BJP.
It is impossible at this stage not to think that you have imposed your WP:SUPERVOTE.
I urge you to undo your page move and let some admin close it. Capitals00 ( talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
not supported by any scholarly source". This article was published by GQ Magazine and it is not a scholarly source. It is from 2015 and has failed to convince any scholarly source to make such a connection. It will take good dozens of scholarly sources before even thinking of such a connection.
"in use (as a main subject)"even mean? A term is first used when a term is first used, and the first use of this term was definitively and demonstrably not in BJP smear campaigns in the 21st century. The 1946 speech by Mohammad Jinnah using the term is alone strewn across at least half a dozen 20th-century sources, and that's just a single usage. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
evaluat[e] their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and use that evaluation as the basis for their findings. This will, at times, lead to results where the consensus diverges from the numerical majority opinion – particularly when the majority is a narrow one, as it was here. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
dozens of scholarly sourceswas never raised or discussed in the RM discussion itself, so naturally it did not feature in my close. Similarly, the claim that "Hindu terrorism" must be a
main subjectof a source was not made in the RM either.Additionally, as a clarifying note: twice now, you've emphasized my usage of the phrasing "rough consensus" in my closing statement. The definition of "rough consensus" I use is the one from the last sentence of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, namely:
Sometimes the term rough consensus is used to indicate a slight consensus, and the term clear consensus is used to indicate an obvious consensus.Accordingly, my usage of "rough consensus" is meant to indicate my stance that, while I did ultimately find a consensus (by examining and appraising the range of arguments made in the RM discussion itself, as discussed in my closing statement), I also wanted to make clear that it was a close call. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Opponents of the move largely sought to criticize the proposed title, "Hindu terrorism", rather than to give affirmative cases for retaining "Saffron terror"' is perplexing, because that is exactly what the opponents are supposed to do. It is not a vote between multiple equally-qualified options. If there is no consensus to move, the current title stands by default, good or bad as it may be. Nowhere does WP:RMCOMMENT state that the present page title needs to be defended in a move discussion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I started a thread on WP:AN. See here, it is about this closure. Capitals00 ( talk) 23:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The part about Groove Music/Media Player (2022) in the Windows Media Player article hopes that you can help update Groove Music is not exclusive to Windows 10. Windows 11 was also built in and was replaced by Media Player (2022) after 2022. And 2023 At that time, Media Player (2022) has also replaced Groove Music in Windows 10. I hope you can help rewrite part of the description in the Windows Media Player article that mentions Groove Music/Media Player (2022). 2401:E180:8800:F5B5:3C22:C096:500E:CC5E ( talk) 17:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The top hit I get at Google is this one. As I said, too generic a name and too recently notable for one specific thing. I'm requesting you re-open the discussion, so I can bring this evidence. Srnec ( talk) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ModernDayTrilobite. 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 a 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! Primefac ( talk) 07:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask for your help in with the weak supervision page. I think the current setup is confusing. I don't really understand how to demerge the page or what the process is for doing so. Could you point me in the right direction? -- Genusfour ( talk) 08:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ModernDayTrilobite,
When you do a page move, if you are leaving a redirect for the article/main page, could you leave one also for the Talk page? Otherwise, we end up with a lot of broken redirect Talk pages that need to be deleted or fixed. If you just move a page and leave a redirect at the same time (which I think you should do in most cases), then it doesn't require any extra work by an editor or admin to correct. Please consider doing this in the future in order not to create extra work. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(a couple months later...)
Hi MDT. If you'd like, there is a newer pageswap script, User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap, that adds talk page redirects such as this automatically (among other new features). SilverLocust 💬 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I see that you have acted as closer for the move discussion at
Talk:Mughalsarai Junction railway station#Requested move 23 June 2023. In many ways your summary is admirable, but it is also incomplete. You wrote I found that the supporters of the move had a stronger body of additional arguments.
Please could you add a summary of those "stronger... additional arguments". --
Toddy1
(talk) 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Unlike for a locality or a landmark where vernacular usage carries much more weight, this is primarily an official establishment where official naming by its owner does matter a lot. On the whole, the official-name argument seemed in keeping with the spirit of the WP:CRITERIA, had a variety of proponents, and does not appear to have been disputed except along the inconclusive COMMONNAME grounds, so I lent it a fair amount of weight.
Can you please undo your closure and relist this discussion? There were only two other participants, which is not what would normally constitute a consensus. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Your ridiculous closure/conclusion re hyphen vs. ndash recently in the title name form, when the MoS is clear, the counter is not COMMONAME it is random & thoughtless & inconsistent book font publisher applications that you and others want to twist to interpret to support COMMONAME. I am not going to try to argue w/ your ridiculous conclusion nor respond here if you do. And I will not enter wikilawyering w/ an appeal. But I will protest in the only way I can ... Hope your decision was worth it. Hello & bye. -- IHTS ( talk) 03:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
random & thoughtless, the result is still that the hyphen was widely used in sources, and that usage (regardless of motive) was what undergirded the COMMONNAME argument.In any case, the hyphen/dash question occupied relatively little space in the overall RM, and consensus can change. Once the dust has had some time to settle, a follow-up discussion that focuses specifically on the hyphen/dash issue could be worthwhile. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this closure, there was burden of proof within those users who oppose it. Because, unless (that's a big unless) there is "overwhelming" sources to demonstrate a consistent variant style, the MOS should be followed. You said there's no consensus, which means they have NOT provided overwhelming evidence for their claim. Then how can you still keep that name? Since this was a special case and an admin's role was discussed, the call should have been taken by an admin. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
the most recent prior stable titleshould be retained. The pre-RM title here had been stable for over a year, and no argument was ever made against its stability, so there's no cause to move the article in a no-consensus situation. Second, per WP:RMNAC, non-admins are not just allowed but
encouraged to close requested move discussionsif they are knowledgeable in matters of titling policy, so there's no basis to the claim that "the call should have been taken by an admin". ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of R Praggnanandhaa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
You recently closed a move request I started at Talk:Ohio Xoggz#Requested move 16 September 2023. You wrote: "The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants did not feel that the "Columbus Xoggz" name had attained sufficient notability to override the general practice of preferring the final name of defunct organizations."
I don't agree with this close, and your closing message doesn't seem to match what was actually said in the discussion. There was one short oppose message (which did not address the notability of the Columbus Xoggz name at all), and then one message which seemed to support the move, as it gave an example of another article which is known by a name other than its final name. I think the discussion should be re-opened. Could you explain your thoughts? Thanks, IagoQnsi ( talk) 07:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Lady Six Monkey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
On 25 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lady Six Monkey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lady Six Monkey was the only one of her four siblings not to be sacrificed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Six Monkey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Lady Six Monkey), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 16,952 views (706.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Dantus21 ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Dantus21 ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello ModernDayTrilobite, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing ( talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
On 13 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Upano Valley sites, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk ( talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) |