Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.)
I was not able to close the RM (due, in no small part, to some game about a magical deer) myself, but I wanted to drop a message about your requested move anyway. While I would've closed the RM in pretty much the same way – I agree with the argument that the river delta is has a large degree of cotermininity with the state of Bangladesh is enough to argue against the "strong national ties" argument – your argument in general that WP:TITLEVAR applies in the case of Indian English is, of course, completely correct, as evidenced by the use of the crore numbering system where necessary. Sceptre ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious if you have another rationale for this RM closure other than WP:VOTE ("this is what people want"). I appreciate your work on RM. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 16:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you supported the 2nd move request even though you said you'd probably oppose such a request last time. Per the views etc it does seem like the religious group has a stronger claim for being primary for the plural than the singular though looking at source etc it does look like the Shakers do indeed still have a strong claim for the singular as a member is a "Shaker" and when its used as a modifier such as a "Shaker chair" (as noted by Walrasiad) though. In terms of the ASTONSISH argument I made previously that is in respect to the likes of Salt and pepper shakers as well as protein shakers (though as noted we don't have an article but we do have mention with the Protein shake redirect). While the previous move request was "not moved" in general and the closer acknowledged B wasn't opposed as much but consensus was against it it actually looks more like a "no consensus" for that though the plural was clearly "not moved" as unanimously opposed. Many readers are going to be far more familiar with these than a religious group with a population of 2. Compare that to Quaker/ Quakers which is not a common noun and has 377,557 members and which I'd heard of and has 69 WP articles worldwide as opposed to 18 for Shakers. In terms of the mistargeted links mentioned by User:Colin M when I fixed the links to "Shaker" (singular) there are 109 mainspace links for the religious group (5 additionally for the subtopic Shaker furniture), 69 for Shaker (musical instrument) (as Colin noted appeared high), 4 for Shaker (gene), 1 for Cocktail shaker and 1 for Shaker (Lil Shaker). There are 2 links left, at CBS and Brian Wilson Presents Smile that I can't work out. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
When you exclude PTMs as noted the bird only gets around 52% of views of topics only called "Jay" and the name also probably has long-term significance but do you not think that the letter name of J also has enough usage and long-term significance to suggest no PT by either criteria? The main argument against the move appears to be that of only things called just "Jay" the bird is marginally primary by either criteria but even that seems dubious. In any case the close was good and correct (unless we went with the rule of having no PT in "no consensus" PT discussions). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Berbers. 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. إيان ( talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, the MRV has been reopened. See its talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Fake dubious has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I had removed a question I asked on the Farux move review because it didn't pertain to whether Paine's actions were to be overturned, so I'll ask over here. If the review moves the article back to Farux, but I open a new RM to directly discuss the X vs. kh issue (one of Paine's counterarguments being that it wasn't directly demonstrated that the RM participants disliked the X spelling) and it becomes clear that the new RM's participants didn't like the X spelling but still cannot agree on "Parukh" or "Farukh" (or "Farrukh"; that also appeared in the original RM), would the WP:NOGOODOPTIONS "no good reasons to keep X" clause apply and the title should stop using the X? On another note, it took me a while to understand that your use of "slapping with WP:TROUT" was in legitimate jest. Namely because I didn't actually click on the WP:TROUT link, oh well. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Noble until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the care that you have evidently put into your closing statement at Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022. However I do not believe that you've provided sufficient rationale to go against a clear majority of 25–16 !voters. Yes, you've argued that there is no consensus on three out of the four points you've highlighted, but I would argue that this is a rather arbitrary way to decide. You do concede that WP:COMMONNAME is well satisfied (the first point you highlight), and if a clear majority of editors favor the move, that should be sufficient –– especially when no contravening consensus on any of the other points was evident. At the very least, I would like to see an admin make a call as controversial as this one, which goes against the clear majority of !voters (yes, WP:NOTAVOTE notwithstanding). All that said, I very much hope that you will not take this request as in any way calling into question your good faith and your effort. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Why did you move this page? There was one support and two people who expressed doubts, and zero reliable sources using the new name. No consensus does not mean "move the page". — Kusma ( talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greg Han. 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. — Kusma ( talk) 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Than you for renaming Odessa -> Odesa! A1 ( talk) 12:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
The discussion at Talk:Valley of Strathmore#Requested move 14 September 2022 is an interesting case where like with Sarah Jane Brown it was difficult to qualify it so using a natural disambiguation was chosen. I don't think though it was problematic even choosing natural disambiguation anyway since the Gazetteer for Scotland prefers the longer name. There was also a similar discussion at Talk:Handa Island. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
They say not to template regulars, so consider this a level-1 warning. I'd consider this vandalism coming from a new user, and with the most AGF I can muster it's still deliberate introduction of a factual error. You introduced material you knew you couldn't substantiate, and it's clear you didn't do the most rudimentary research like, you know, googling the word. If it was just the comment on the talk I'd get that you were trying to be funny, but actually adding it in the main namespace defies explanation. I hope it won't happen again. Nardog ( talk) 07:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You wrote at Talk:AOC (disambiguation) that "no compelling argument was made whatsoever about long-term significance". Maybe you missed my comment that said:
Nobody responded to that actually. (I guess it got lost in the weirdness of the rest of that thread.) Certainly I can understand if you didn't find this argument compelling, but I'd appreciate it if you could phrase it in a way other than one that implies that there was no argument made whatsoever. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
create an improbable redirect? 🤔 – robertsky ( talk) 17:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For writing WP:NOGOODOPTIONS; it and Wikipedia:Bartender's closing provide excellent advice - I hadn't realized that you wrote the former. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
How about add a subRFC (or two) for the pending copy edits, might as well get them approved at same time? Selfstudier ( talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not happy with your closure comments per
WP:RMNAC Non-administrators are reminded that closing a discussion calls for an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of it, although arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and consensus in mind). Any editor wishing to express an opinion on the requested move should join the discussion, not close it.
(my bold) You several times expressed your personal opinion of the move (that you were much much much much much surprised monkeypox wasn't actually the common name, that the discussion should have been at RM, your views about which way the name should change in the event of no-consensus, your view that COMMNAME is "tempered" by NAMECHANGES, your view about the lead sentence). None of those are acceptable in a move closure. Not one. I think at this point it would be better if you just undo the move closure and let someone else who can remain impartial and accurately document things without letting personal views interfere. By all means register your own vote and opinions since you obviously feel very strongly about it. But it is not the job of the closer to use the close comments as a platform to air their strong views. Very much not.
Frankly, the fact that those joining via RM were all ignorant of article naming policy (specifically NAMECHANGES) makes me never want to touch that part of WP with a bargepole. The name change is not in fact, in reality, in the real world, controversial, though that may surprise you. For that reason, RM guidelines explicitly state RM should not be used. It only became "controversial" because some folk at RM got their nose out of joint. Which is pathetic and just wasted the time of good editors. -- Colin° Talk 10:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::::::::Thanks for the concession. I am not happier but a little less annoyed. The problem is we had to get this right because it involves other articles. One discussion about the renaming the outbreak has been placed on hold awaiting the closure. A competent closure would have allowed us to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". We can't do that now without concerns about it "not counting" because the closure was inept. Graham Beards ( talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen two bigger malcontents whine about a discussion that actually closed in their favor. This is beyond petty. ValarianB ( talk) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus [...] The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.I note an administrator has since clarified this at Talk:Mpox#Comment_on_closure. I would think it better if workload on RM was reduced by having more Talk page discussions happening to resolve issues at an earlier stage!
Two quick comments here. First,
something fishy is going on with the close template - I don't think it's got the end part, since it's absorbing the discussion below. Secondly, while I'm not interested in contesting the close, I would like to encourage you to temper your comment, particularly the somewhat dismissive "(of course) ... by far"
, regarding 'Arab' as alternative terminology. This does not seem reflective of the evidence presented. Perhaps you missed the
case de-sensitized Ngrams, because the original Ngrams notably omitted "Arab Conquest of Spain" (fully capitalized), which relates to perhaps the
single, most seminal work on the subject (and source of a third of the in-line references). In fact, if one requires caps, in a proper name title sense, the situation
quickly reverses. The
discussion also elaborated considerably on this terminology.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey Goose (vodka). 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. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Let me be the first to throw a pitchfork: that was the most blatant supervote I've seen in a while. Why do we need editors deliberating and weighing criteria, why do we need specialized naming conventions, when you can decide it all on your own? I acknowledge you're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but... c'mon... please undo that closure. No such user ( talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France.and further states
Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon. And the convention has been in effect for like 15 years, save for a brief period in 2021, with a general consensus of editors that CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY should be given extra weight over PRECISION and CONCISE in this area, since many regnal names are reused or ambiguous between countries.
However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.We have an existing consensus in this field, and it's NCROY. No such user ( talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Bon courage ( talk) 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Red Slash! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage ( talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind undoing your RM close and possibly !voting instead? The way you've closed and worded your closing comes off as a super-vote given how close the discussion was. SportingFlyer T· C 00:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Poop. 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. SportingFlyer T· C 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
For several weeks, perhaps more. Red Slash 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Template:Use has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at Talk:TERF, but I got confused regarding updating the links. Do we need to update all the current links that lead to " TERF" to " TERF (acronym)"? Because there is also consensus to retarget "TERF" to " gender-critical feminism". That means, if we only perform the move without updating the links, the instance of "TERF" in J. K. Rowling article will lead to gender-critical feminism. So, from that example Rowling article, do we need to update " TERF" to " TERF (acronym)"? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
[[TERF]]
to [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]]
and from [[TERF|
to [[TERF (acronym)|
with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term.
SilverLocust
💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think this is now good enough for mainspace (and once there, to serve as the primary topic target for Send and Sent). What do you think? Any holes to fill? BD2412 T 05:12, 12 October 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas and Missouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.NotAMoleMan ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you possibly move this to your userspace considering it looks like a joke page? It's currently showing up at User:Certes/Reports/Talk with redirected parent, and while I normally move to do's, this one really doesn't seem like it should be in main/talkspace. Sennecaster ( Chat) 02:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Huizar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Lettlre ( talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with other attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. Jfire ( talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.)
I was not able to close the RM (due, in no small part, to some game about a magical deer) myself, but I wanted to drop a message about your requested move anyway. While I would've closed the RM in pretty much the same way – I agree with the argument that the river delta is has a large degree of cotermininity with the state of Bangladesh is enough to argue against the "strong national ties" argument – your argument in general that WP:TITLEVAR applies in the case of Indian English is, of course, completely correct, as evidenced by the use of the crore numbering system where necessary. Sceptre ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious if you have another rationale for this RM closure other than WP:VOTE ("this is what people want"). I appreciate your work on RM. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 16:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you supported the 2nd move request even though you said you'd probably oppose such a request last time. Per the views etc it does seem like the religious group has a stronger claim for being primary for the plural than the singular though looking at source etc it does look like the Shakers do indeed still have a strong claim for the singular as a member is a "Shaker" and when its used as a modifier such as a "Shaker chair" (as noted by Walrasiad) though. In terms of the ASTONSISH argument I made previously that is in respect to the likes of Salt and pepper shakers as well as protein shakers (though as noted we don't have an article but we do have mention with the Protein shake redirect). While the previous move request was "not moved" in general and the closer acknowledged B wasn't opposed as much but consensus was against it it actually looks more like a "no consensus" for that though the plural was clearly "not moved" as unanimously opposed. Many readers are going to be far more familiar with these than a religious group with a population of 2. Compare that to Quaker/ Quakers which is not a common noun and has 377,557 members and which I'd heard of and has 69 WP articles worldwide as opposed to 18 for Shakers. In terms of the mistargeted links mentioned by User:Colin M when I fixed the links to "Shaker" (singular) there are 109 mainspace links for the religious group (5 additionally for the subtopic Shaker furniture), 69 for Shaker (musical instrument) (as Colin noted appeared high), 4 for Shaker (gene), 1 for Cocktail shaker and 1 for Shaker (Lil Shaker). There are 2 links left, at CBS and Brian Wilson Presents Smile that I can't work out. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
When you exclude PTMs as noted the bird only gets around 52% of views of topics only called "Jay" and the name also probably has long-term significance but do you not think that the letter name of J also has enough usage and long-term significance to suggest no PT by either criteria? The main argument against the move appears to be that of only things called just "Jay" the bird is marginally primary by either criteria but even that seems dubious. In any case the close was good and correct (unless we went with the rule of having no PT in "no consensus" PT discussions). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Berbers. 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. إيان ( talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, the MRV has been reopened. See its talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Fake dubious has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I had removed a question I asked on the Farux move review because it didn't pertain to whether Paine's actions were to be overturned, so I'll ask over here. If the review moves the article back to Farux, but I open a new RM to directly discuss the X vs. kh issue (one of Paine's counterarguments being that it wasn't directly demonstrated that the RM participants disliked the X spelling) and it becomes clear that the new RM's participants didn't like the X spelling but still cannot agree on "Parukh" or "Farukh" (or "Farrukh"; that also appeared in the original RM), would the WP:NOGOODOPTIONS "no good reasons to keep X" clause apply and the title should stop using the X? On another note, it took me a while to understand that your use of "slapping with WP:TROUT" was in legitimate jest. Namely because I didn't actually click on the WP:TROUT link, oh well. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Noble until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the care that you have evidently put into your closing statement at Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022. However I do not believe that you've provided sufficient rationale to go against a clear majority of 25–16 !voters. Yes, you've argued that there is no consensus on three out of the four points you've highlighted, but I would argue that this is a rather arbitrary way to decide. You do concede that WP:COMMONNAME is well satisfied (the first point you highlight), and if a clear majority of editors favor the move, that should be sufficient –– especially when no contravening consensus on any of the other points was evident. At the very least, I would like to see an admin make a call as controversial as this one, which goes against the clear majority of !voters (yes, WP:NOTAVOTE notwithstanding). All that said, I very much hope that you will not take this request as in any way calling into question your good faith and your effort. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Why did you move this page? There was one support and two people who expressed doubts, and zero reliable sources using the new name. No consensus does not mean "move the page". — Kusma ( talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greg Han. 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. — Kusma ( talk) 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Than you for renaming Odessa -> Odesa! A1 ( talk) 12:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
The discussion at Talk:Valley of Strathmore#Requested move 14 September 2022 is an interesting case where like with Sarah Jane Brown it was difficult to qualify it so using a natural disambiguation was chosen. I don't think though it was problematic even choosing natural disambiguation anyway since the Gazetteer for Scotland prefers the longer name. There was also a similar discussion at Talk:Handa Island. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
They say not to template regulars, so consider this a level-1 warning. I'd consider this vandalism coming from a new user, and with the most AGF I can muster it's still deliberate introduction of a factual error. You introduced material you knew you couldn't substantiate, and it's clear you didn't do the most rudimentary research like, you know, googling the word. If it was just the comment on the talk I'd get that you were trying to be funny, but actually adding it in the main namespace defies explanation. I hope it won't happen again. Nardog ( talk) 07:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You wrote at Talk:AOC (disambiguation) that "no compelling argument was made whatsoever about long-term significance". Maybe you missed my comment that said:
Nobody responded to that actually. (I guess it got lost in the weirdness of the rest of that thread.) Certainly I can understand if you didn't find this argument compelling, but I'd appreciate it if you could phrase it in a way other than one that implies that there was no argument made whatsoever. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
create an improbable redirect? 🤔 – robertsky ( talk) 17:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For writing WP:NOGOODOPTIONS; it and Wikipedia:Bartender's closing provide excellent advice - I hadn't realized that you wrote the former. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
How about add a subRFC (or two) for the pending copy edits, might as well get them approved at same time? Selfstudier ( talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not happy with your closure comments per
WP:RMNAC Non-administrators are reminded that closing a discussion calls for an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of it, although arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and consensus in mind). Any editor wishing to express an opinion on the requested move should join the discussion, not close it.
(my bold) You several times expressed your personal opinion of the move (that you were much much much much much surprised monkeypox wasn't actually the common name, that the discussion should have been at RM, your views about which way the name should change in the event of no-consensus, your view that COMMNAME is "tempered" by NAMECHANGES, your view about the lead sentence). None of those are acceptable in a move closure. Not one. I think at this point it would be better if you just undo the move closure and let someone else who can remain impartial and accurately document things without letting personal views interfere. By all means register your own vote and opinions since you obviously feel very strongly about it. But it is not the job of the closer to use the close comments as a platform to air their strong views. Very much not.
Frankly, the fact that those joining via RM were all ignorant of article naming policy (specifically NAMECHANGES) makes me never want to touch that part of WP with a bargepole. The name change is not in fact, in reality, in the real world, controversial, though that may surprise you. For that reason, RM guidelines explicitly state RM should not be used. It only became "controversial" because some folk at RM got their nose out of joint. Which is pathetic and just wasted the time of good editors. -- Colin° Talk 10:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::::::::Thanks for the concession. I am not happier but a little less annoyed. The problem is we had to get this right because it involves other articles. One discussion about the renaming the outbreak has been placed on hold awaiting the closure. A competent closure would have allowed us to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". We can't do that now without concerns about it "not counting" because the closure was inept. Graham Beards ( talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen two bigger malcontents whine about a discussion that actually closed in their favor. This is beyond petty. ValarianB ( talk) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus [...] The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.I note an administrator has since clarified this at Talk:Mpox#Comment_on_closure. I would think it better if workload on RM was reduced by having more Talk page discussions happening to resolve issues at an earlier stage!
Two quick comments here. First,
something fishy is going on with the close template - I don't think it's got the end part, since it's absorbing the discussion below. Secondly, while I'm not interested in contesting the close, I would like to encourage you to temper your comment, particularly the somewhat dismissive "(of course) ... by far"
, regarding 'Arab' as alternative terminology. This does not seem reflective of the evidence presented. Perhaps you missed the
case de-sensitized Ngrams, because the original Ngrams notably omitted "Arab Conquest of Spain" (fully capitalized), which relates to perhaps the
single, most seminal work on the subject (and source of a third of the in-line references). In fact, if one requires caps, in a proper name title sense, the situation
quickly reverses. The
discussion also elaborated considerably on this terminology.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey Goose (vodka). 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. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Let me be the first to throw a pitchfork: that was the most blatant supervote I've seen in a while. Why do we need editors deliberating and weighing criteria, why do we need specialized naming conventions, when you can decide it all on your own? I acknowledge you're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but... c'mon... please undo that closure. No such user ( talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France.and further states
Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon. And the convention has been in effect for like 15 years, save for a brief period in 2021, with a general consensus of editors that CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY should be given extra weight over PRECISION and CONCISE in this area, since many regnal names are reused or ambiguous between countries.
However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.We have an existing consensus in this field, and it's NCROY. No such user ( talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Bon courage ( talk) 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Red Slash! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage ( talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind undoing your RM close and possibly !voting instead? The way you've closed and worded your closing comes off as a super-vote given how close the discussion was. SportingFlyer T· C 00:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Poop. 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. SportingFlyer T· C 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
For several weeks, perhaps more. Red Slash 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Template:Use has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at Talk:TERF, but I got confused regarding updating the links. Do we need to update all the current links that lead to " TERF" to " TERF (acronym)"? Because there is also consensus to retarget "TERF" to " gender-critical feminism". That means, if we only perform the move without updating the links, the instance of "TERF" in J. K. Rowling article will lead to gender-critical feminism. So, from that example Rowling article, do we need to update " TERF" to " TERF (acronym)"? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
[[TERF]]
to [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]]
and from [[TERF|
to [[TERF (acronym)|
with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term.
SilverLocust
💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think this is now good enough for mainspace (and once there, to serve as the primary topic target for Send and Sent). What do you think? Any holes to fill? BD2412 T 05:12, 12 October 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas and Missouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.NotAMoleMan ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you possibly move this to your userspace considering it looks like a joke page? It's currently showing up at User:Certes/Reports/Talk with redirected parent, and while I normally move to do's, this one really doesn't seem like it should be in main/talkspace. Sennecaster ( Chat) 02:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Huizar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Lettlre ( talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with other attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. Jfire ( talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)