User talk:No such user

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

Croatian locations and language
... you were recipient no. 1480 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

... and three! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

You are vandalising Peter Norman. Stop vandalising, it's spectacularly stupid. 148.122.187.2 (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping

I would not have known anything about it otherwise. The discussion caused me to comment at one or two other CFD's that I see you also commented on. (see? the category has already fostered collaboration!) God I hate this place sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ice cream headache requested move

See my reason for support and my reply to In ictu oculi. Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, No such user. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: (Belated) thanks for the invitation, but I'll think I'll pass – as I've never felt an inclination to perform NPP for my years of tenure, I don't think I ever will. No such user (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it isn't for everyone. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Brine

Hi, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Surely a table of freezing points belongs in a section discussing its use as a refrigerant? Saline water doesn't seems like a good fit, as the table mostly concerns concentrations which would be classed as brine.--Project Osprey (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Project Osprey: On principle, I'm against WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. Physical properties of all concentrations of saline waters are given in, um, saline water. Brine#Refrigerating fluid article explains the physical process (sort-of, should be made clearer) but I don't think reader's understanding is enhanced with a large table of salt water's physical properties. If needed for explanation, saline water#properties can be simply linked from the relevant sentence (I can't even locate an appropriate one at the moment). No such user (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, No such user. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Postalveolars

As I said a month ago or so, I'm working on the articles. See User:Mr_KEBAB/VPAS. Obviously, it's far from complete. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Serbia waterpolo team

FINA considers Serbia to be inheritor of both SFRJ and SCG results. This document is evidence https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/final_histofina_wp_2016_0.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagibgd (talk • contribs)

Results can't be inherited, you should actually read that source. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually that document list results for YUG until 2003, SCG from 2003 till 2006 and SRB after that. Similarly TCH results are still credited as TCH results.Tvx1 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

The Yugoslavia name has been carried out by both SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia actually.Tvx1 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Italian place names

A few days have passed since my last reply to you ([1]), I'd like you to read it and tell me what your thoughts about my last linguistic argumentation. 151.48.215.96 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The page about Baselga di Piné was correctly renamed. Could you please move the other one, Ruffré-Mendola, please? The page in it.wikipedia has already been moved, which means that consensus was reached in the Italian wiki about this Italian name, exactly as for Piné, and other wikis moved both pages too. Even Google Maps spells it Ruffré, as it does for Piné. And let's not forget the 2 noted Italian orthography and pronunciation dictionaries, DOP and DiPI, which agree with the acute accent spelling. There's no reason not to move this page, overall after moving Piné, as far as I can see... 151.48.215.96 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Islanding

I thought you might want to know that I requested revision deletion of the copyright violations you removed. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

An unusual request

Hi. I have a query related to languages. I could have posted it at WP:RDL, where you've answered my queries a few times so far, but for personal reasons I prefer this one not to be public. Given your areas of expertise, I think you'll maybe have some idea about how to help me, or know who might have.

Could you please give me the chance to contact you via email? If you specify an email in your settings and mail me, I'll mail you back. It needn't be your "regular" email; you could just make one for this purpose only, and then remove it from your settings.

I realize this is a bizarre request. Feel free to decline it, ignore it, and even delete it from your talk page. Still, I would be grateful if you responded. --Theurgist (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Theurgist. You got mail. No such user (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Renaming discussion

I'd love to get your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Green Park tube station bombing. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing decision

No such user, I'm sorry but am not convinced in regard to your close at Talk:Die, Monster, Die#Requested move 17 May 2018. Whether or not my oppose !vote to rename to the native-language title is convincing, I think the oppose rationales carried more weight than you seem to think. It's possible that the outcome should have been "no consensus" and the page should not have been renamed to "Murder Me, Monster". So I ask at this time that you reconsider your close.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Painius: I don't see that anyone agreed with your position. The film has an official translation ("Murder Me, Monster"), as issued by its very producers and distributors, it is commonly referred in English-language media under that title, and, for God's sake, it's the title that can be seen at the theatrical poster in the infobox. The nominator provided quite a number of English RS using the proposed title. WP:NCFILM provisions for native titles apply only to films that have never seen a significant English coverage, and this one has. Please see WP:NCFILM#Examples–none of the exceptions (Bande à part (film), Ran (film)) applies here. Finally, I'll point out that it's all based on the WP:UE policy: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name... but we do have one here. No such user (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, whether or not my arg was convincing, I think the opposing args were, as a whole, weighty enough to challenge what the supporting args set forth. This should have led to a "no consensus" outcome, and the page should not have been moved. In regard to your arg above, while it seems convincing, it is by no means completely accurate. There has been no evidence produced that this film has ever been released in English-speaking countries under any English title. At the very least, the title from which you moved the page, "Die, Monster, Die", is a direct translation, and the title to which you moved the page, "Murder Me, Monster", is a "variant English translation" and is covered clearly by the film guideline. At the very least, there should have been a "no consensus" outcome, and the page should retain its direct English translation. Would you be okay with a new RM to request that the page be retitled to its native-language title?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Opposes from Lugnuts and ONR were based on apparent misconception that both titles (Die, Monster, Die and Murder Me, Monster) were in equal circulation in English, but they were refuted by the point that the former was based on an early Cannes festival webpage that has been superseded since. The list of some 15 sources in the nomination using the proposed title has not been refuted by anyone.
As for opening a fresh RM, you're certainly entitled to it. But I don't think that your apparent interpretation of WP:NCFILM that the film must have an English theatrical release (it's barely a month since it was released in home market, after all) to have a English translated title holds closer scrutiny; the criterion is more commonly recognized by English readers, and the film has seen a fair deal of English-language coverage so far, so that we can say that one is established. No such user (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the film guideline, which expressly states that if the film has not been released in English-speaking countries, then the native-language title is preferred over any and all variant translations. Thank you for allowing a new RM, and would you be kind enough to add that to your closing statement?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just had a thought based upon what you said about "(it's barely a month since it was released in home market, after all)". Your closing sentence was "It has been reasonably demonstrated that 'Murder Me, Monster' eventually emerged as the most common one." So I wonder how after only a month, any English variant translation could possibly emerge as more common than the film's Spanish language release title, Muere, Monstruo, Muere? As you say, it's only been barely a month, after all.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Painius, please see the evidence for yourself in the RM nomination. The film was shown in the Cannes festival, which makes it notable in the first place. We have 12 (fifteen) English-language references, produced by Film Fan, mostly reviews and the festival coverage, and several producer websites, all using the Monster title in English. That makes it a pretty open and shut case. I'm really at loss how you fail to even acknowledge that evidence, let alone address it. If you want, open that RM, or start a MR, you don't need my blessing, but I don't think we should discuss this further here. No such user (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, because I certainly mean no harm. Mainly, I just don't understand why the guideline seems unclear to editors. No amount of coverage in English reliable sources under variant English titles is as important as the Spanish title under which it was released – no amount. That's what the guideline "guides" us to do. And that guideline represents the consensus of our community. While I still disagree that there was consensus to move, I do not plan an MRV at this time. I think I'll wait awhile on the RM, as well. This will be my last response to you on this matter. Again, I never meant to close you off to further discussion, very sorry for that!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

PS. Just FYI, Film Fan has opened a discussion on the guideline's talk page. PS added by  Paine  20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Walls of Basel

Merging the articles on the various gates into Walls of Basel has broken several InterWiki links, including but not limited to wikidata:Q669522, wikidata:Q392077, wikidata:Q667144 and wikidata:Q381836, making those articles in non-English Wikis effectively inaccessible from English Wiki. Those and other merges have also removed valid entries in categories like Category:Gates in Switzerland, Category:Buildings and structures in Basel, Category:History of Basel and Category:Cultural property of national significance in Basel-Stadt. You might wish to reconsider your recent actions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I think that our duty first and foremost is to provide information to English Wikipedia readers in a succinct and most accessible manner. But having one sentence articles such as those inviting the reader to visit them to find more information is much more reader-unfriendly than depriving them of interwiki links. While nice to have, having interwiki links is pretty low on the list of issues to consider, and it is AFAICT nowhere specified in our guidelines that we have duty to maintain the article structure as in other wikis (otherwise, nothing would ever get done); we aren't a database of cross-wiki mapping – wikidata is. Readers who speak German or Allemanisch and wish a better article than ours still can go to de:Basler Stadtmauer and deep-dive from there.
As for having entries of those gates in appropriate categories, that is easily fixable, but I'd rather move those to German-language redirects, which seem to be their common names. No such user (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You have raised several points.

1. If one-line stubby unsourced articles are turned into redirects, those articles will never get written in English Wiki, no matter what exists in non-English Wikis. If there is a guideline, I don't know of it. Is there somewhere where we two can open a discussion and argue our opposing corners towards a WP:CONSENSUS? This is a very important Wiki issue indeed.
2. In any event, your argument fails as regards Aeschenschwibbogen. That article was supported by four independent WP:RS sources, and was larger and better-referenced than either the Alemannisch or the German article. (Alemannisch isn't exactly difficult to understand, even when spoken.)
3. I wholeheartedly agree that amateur translations of non-English placenames should be stamped upon, heavily and quickly. It looks as if this nonsense Talk:Aeschentor#Requested move 17 June 2018 was created by a Wiki editor and has now escaped into the wild. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, I was away for the weekend.

1. I'm afraid I don't know about a more appropriate place for discussion of broader approach. For this case, as you know, there was a mention of a merger at Aeschentor RM, and Andrewa and I later had a brief merge discussion at Talk:Walls of Basel, and after a month without opposition I decided to go for it. My general impression is that over the years requirements for a minimal article have gradually raised, as evidenced by stringent criteria at WP:AFC and Draft promotion, but I don't think there are any written rules. WP:STUB and WP:SUBSTUB essay only contain very broad guidance.
   However, to counter your point to an extent, I will notice that all of those articles (Gate of Saint John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gate of Steinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) etc.) were created in 2006 by the same author in essentially the same sorry state as I found them before merging. I think that mere existence of a substub actually discourages proper article creation, much more so than a red link would. A potential author might think "oh, we do have an article about this, well, it's crap, but it's been vetted by someone", while a redlink might inspire someone to fill in an apparent void and claim a "creator trophy". Not having a full article on a landmark as prominent as Spalentor on en: is a shame, but I think it has to do with having a bad article there for so long time.
2. Kudos to you for writing Aeschenschwibbogen, but it wasn't much larger than als: and de: counterparts. However, it was IMO a minimal reasonable article size, and if all the gate articles were written in a similar volume, I doubt anyone would think of merging them. However, I think my merge essentially carried over all the information (I only erased a sentence about someone being executed there sometime). I wouldn't mind you restoring it, as it basically fell victim to other articles' bad quality (why have more info on a small razed gate than on an existing and magnificent one)?

In sum, I think we should focus on providing quality information about the topics of interest rather than on the sheer number of articles espousing this information. Call me a m:Mergist if you like. No such user (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) ping No such user (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Spanish flu": inaccurate and offensive

Hi "no such user",

In the talk page of the 1918 flu pandemic, I have listed several reasons for opposing the requested move of the article to "Spanish flu". Happy to copy them here if necessary? I believe the opinions voiced were rather poorly argued. I don't dispute that there was a consensus, just that the debate leading to that consensus ignored most relevant aspects of the move.

I understand you are the closer of that vote and I need to raise this with you first? I'm slowly learning how this process works, so apologies if I didn't start this through the right channels.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers,

MiG-25 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MiG-25. As you guessed, a closer's job is generally to assess consensus and weigh arguments based on applicable policies, not to impose a "supervote". In the debate, support for "[1918] Spanish [F/f]lu" was near-unanonimous, with only Amory dissenting, and supporters put forward evidence that "Spanish flu" is the common name indeed.

I'll reply further on Talk:Spanish flu for greater transparency. No such user (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi No Such User,

I don't know if you followed the discussion involving Rjensen and myself after your response on this topic. To sum up, firstly, the PubMed data used in the vote was incorrect: 1918 influenza is more common. Secondly, while "Spanish flu" is more common in both general and Google Book searches, the alternatives are not uncommon (General: ~700,000 for Spanish flu to ~400,000 for the addition of "1918 flu" and "1918 influenza"; similar ratio for Books). Finally, I believe I have provided plenty of evidence that "Spanish flu" is considered, at the very least, quite unfortunate in Spanish and medical and divulgation sources. These are at pains to emphasize that it is a misnomer or actively avoid or encourage avoiding such uses (CDC, WHO and The Conversation).

I fully understand and respect that you were simply interpreting what seemed to be a fairly clear result in favour of "Spanish flu". However, I would say evidence in support for change based on WP:COMMONNAME seems rather weak in light of the above. Examples often used as part of WP:COMMONNAME do not seem to compare easily to this case, which may also explain the problems in applying it.

I don't know if you would be the best person to re-open a vote/move vote review or whether I should do it. In any case, I would appreciate any guidance.

In closing and regardless of this debate, I would like to thank you very much for your time and express my true appreciation for your efforts in making this great project work. MiG-25 (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@MiG-25: apologies for delayed response – vacation season. Thank you for your kind message.
At this point, I think the best way forward is that you start a new RM, and bring forward the new evidence. WP:Move Review usually focuses whether the RM procedure was correct, and would not overturn it solely based on new evidence. Thanks. No such user (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Lewis

Hi No such user. I am unhappy with your close of the move discussion there. Can you please revisit it? Can you also please refrain from closing any more move discussions for the meantime? --John (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you ignored my request. You are now on my radar as somebody who has incompetently closed move discussions. If I saw you do it again, I would raise your behaviour at a central discussion and it is likely you would receive a sanction. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free, John. Can't say I'm impressed with your behavior though, as you chose intimidation and vague threats over policy- and argument-based discussion, but I'll leave any further comment for that "central discussion". No such user (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a vague threat, it's a promise that since you clearly do not understand how to evaluate consensus you should refrain from making any more poor judgements like the one we are talking about. --John (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The close was good, and in fact the only available one. There was clear consensus, supported by evidence, that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so moving it to some title was necessary. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, this is the right thing to do. NSU even stated that a new RM could be held to hash out the best form of disambiguation. There's nothing at all out of process here. John, if you feel differently, you can take it to move review, though it's very unlikely it would succeed, as the close was totally reasonable. I'd strongly advise against threatening people with "a sanction" for perfectly reasonable, kosher actions; that tends to WP:BOOMERANG.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Kalyanasundaranar listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kalyanasundaranar. Since you had some involvement with the Kalyanasundaranar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for DC Vertigo

An editor has asked for a Move review of DC Vertigo. 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. (as discussed on Talk:DC Vertigo#Consensus?) –Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please fix links

Now you have moved Kings Park, Western Australia which is both a place in it's own right and its actual name as well as subject to WA Government state legislation - to Kings Park, Perth can you fix all the associated pages, categories as well. There was no need to move is because of Glouster Park disambiguation which isnt a park but rather the name of a trotting venue. Gnangarra 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: – I made a WP:BOLD move and I'll be happy to revert it if anyone thinks it was inappropriate. It just seemed strange to me to disambiguate a city's central park by the name of the province – parks, streets, neighborhoods and like are typically dabbed by city name.
However, one way or another, I don't see there are any links to fix - all pages that used to link there still Special:Whatlinkshere/Kings Park, Perth still do; only the Category:Kings Park, Western Australia is currently inconsistent with its main article.
I feel as if I'm missing something: do you object to my chosen title or do you think I broke something? No such user (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

since you have no problem I'll revert to the actual name. Gnangarra 12:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: You may need my assistance for that, the redirect is now "salted". But still: I'd like to know why do you prefer the old name? Like I said, it's very odd to have a city park (or a city quarter, whatever) disambiguated by province name. No such user (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Being western Australia it does not necessarily fit to other country perspectives, unusual maybe elsewhere, accepted in western australia. Nothing odd from the perspective here. JarrahTree 14:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes its in the centre of Perth but it was separated from Perth when create it exists under its own state legislation as does the responsible organisation KPBGB, to protect the area from development it's effectively a National Park and excluded from all Perth Metropolitan area planning schemes. Gnangarra 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But its legal status is the least concern how we name the articles. It is located in the heart of the city, and all the sources and guides treat it as part of Perth, not as a location somewhere within vast Western Australia. It's akin to renaming Hyde Park, London to Hyde Park, England. But OK, being past the WP:BRD cycle I preserve the right to start a requested move on the talk page, to seek broader consensus... if I get arsed to. No such user (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal name = Official name, Primary topic/ DAB both use official name in preference when common name is in conflict with other topics. Gnangarra 15:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: Hyde Park, London is not at Hyde Park, England per WP:UKPLACE which specifies that 1, disambiguation is usually to county not country, 2 Hyde Park is unquestionably part of the urban settlement of London and 3, places within Greater London user Placename, London. Hagley Park, Worcestershire for example is at Hagley Park, Worcestershire, not Hagley Park, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: dont why you are pinging me (I didnt raise the issue) or commenting here about Hyde Park in London as this discussion is about Western Australia though we too have Hyde Park, Perth. The issue was moving Kings Park , Western Australia to Kings Park, Perth which is a uniquely Western Australian issue as Kings Park while in the center of Perth isnt part of the Perth Metropolitan area but rather a place in its own right. Gnangarra 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My collages

Ok, engleski mi je loš priznajem, ali ne znam u čemu je tvoj problem!? Kakve veze ima veličina slike? Slike su postavljene u odgovarajućoj veličini ali sam je ja menjao prilikom postavljanja slika u članke! Veličina je svuda bila 360px, ali sam negde stavio 500px što možda jeste preterano....! Ok nek ti bude, tebi jedinom smeta! Na Srpskoj vikipediji, ne vidim da nekom smeta! Makar biraj i postavljaj lepše slike! I ne nazivaj moje kolaže dečijim, please! Neću više ni postavljati slike na English wiki! Zeks127 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

-Ako je tako onda ću posebno i specijalno za English Wikipedia napraviti kolaže sa maks. 6 slika, i dobro probrati i staviti najupečatljivije slike, iz svih značajnijih gradova u ovoj zemlji.... Ali to tek u narednih mesec dana! Ostavi barem Beograd, Novi Sad i Niš.... Zeks127 (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, No such user. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotterdam (song) move review

Re: the move discussed here.

Could you clarify your decision on closing/moving this page? The song's title (as listed on the album sleeve, single release, and all subsequent digital releases) is "Rotterdam (Or Anywhere)". "Rotterdam" is simply not the name of the song. I don't see how WP:COMMONNAME applies here - no other song names are truncated like this (e.g. Street Spirit (Fade Out); It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)). Am planning on opening a move review on this. Klock101 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Klock101 I don't even recall that RM. However, it was a run-of-the-mill under-attended one, relisted a few times, where two experienced users suggested an alternative title, so the outcome was rather simple to determine, if not terribly decisive; it's not a closer's duty to go out of their way to check the evidence. Indeed, on a quick check, both refs in the article refer to the song as simply "Rotterdam" (unlike e.g. "Street Spirit (Fade Out)". I don't really care either way, but I'd suggest starting a new RM with fresh evidence, than going though MR. No such user (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

DAB - consequently...

Based on your comment to the edit from May 2018, why don't you unlink all DAB pages from there? --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Re [2]

See WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 04:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

I just want to thank you for your support at the AN/I discussion. I took the liberty of copying your comments onto my talk page for the benefit of anybody reading about the block in the future. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Scolaire. I'm sad to see cowboy admin actions still running unfettered in year 2019. No such user (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Honey

Hello, No such user. What do you mean "just isn't idiomatic" with regards to what was previously added to Honey? The word "millennia" is the plural form of "millennium" which is a term for a thousand years. Because the phrase "thousands of years" perfectly fits the definition of "millennia," I think the word can be used. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Just because a word can be used does not mean that it should be used. Yes, "millennium" means the same as "thousand [of] years", but I don't think that it's as commonly used in collocation with "for". For me at least, "for millennia" does not sound as natural as "for thousands of years", i.e. it is not wikt:idiomatic. Now, I grant that the former has been used on Wikipedia 1,252 times, but a lot of it is in paleontology contexts, and the latter has been used 2,751 times. Anyway, this is a too trifle issue to have a dispute about. No such user (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ban discussion

You asked where the original ban discussion was. The only discussion is the first thing I linked in the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dicklyon requests clarification or lifting of restrictions. Here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Standard offer unblock request from Dicklyon. There was no ban proposed or discussed except a few comments there.

Please also see my comments at User talk:GoldenRing#Examples, background?. I'm happy to send details if you want to defend me. I won't wade in myself, but I hate to see hearsay and misinformation going un-countered. Thanks very much for what you've done already. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I had seen and read the Archive 277 discussion, but some editors there obliquely referred to an earlier page move ban... Ah, I see, Ivanvector referenced it explicitly: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Dicklyon_and_mass_moves. While I intend to read it, I see that it resulted in a 6-months page move ban which expired in late 2015. No such user (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it expired before my unblock and was not renewed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Continental Europe

Hello. As the article (Continental Europe) says already in the lead the Scandinavian peninsula isn't included in Continental Europe in some definitions of it, and that's what I learned when I went to school, people in Scandinavia also don't see their countries as part of the continent. Which makes my version of the text on Handball, which doesn't mention Continental Europe at all, much less ambigious than the version you reverted to, whether one feels that Scandinavia is part of continental Europe or not. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Well, "continental Europe" was there for a purpose: in all definitions, it excludes British Isles, and UK and Ireland make up a significant percent of en.wiki readership, but the sport is virtually unknown there (and, for a long time, handball (disambiguation) had occupied the main title due to anglophone editors' ignorance). Thus, your "European" is arguably more ambiguous, since it includes significant countries (in readership sense) that don't have anything to do with handball.

Frankly, as a southern European, this is the first time I hear that Scandinavia does not constitute "continental Europe" in some definitions, and our article mentions that only later, so I'm possibly somewhat biased. I'm not certain how widespread this is.

Anyway, do you think that "mainland Europe" would work better? No such user (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Since hardly anyone in the UK or Ireland (or any other major English-speaking country for that matter) has even heard of handball, and thus no one there is likely to believe that there is such a thing as a UK or Irish national team in the sport, there's very little risk that they would believe that either of those countries has won anything in that sport. Since English-speakers outside Europe also don't divide Europe into continental and non-continental we shouldn't either. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Roulettes

While I agree that there was consensus against moving the aerobatics meaning with a redirect to Roulette. There was surely no consensus on the issue of primary topic v having "Roulettes" redirect to Roulette (disambiguation) or its self be a DAB. Most of the arguments against were about the game being uncountable (which I noted at the beginning) but didn't really take into account the fact that curve and band are reasonable topics for this term. Yes at the end one of the opposers clarified their !vote but surely given the evidence I presented (Google and pageviews) showed that there is likely no primary topic for the plural. Would something like "There is consensus against redirecting to Roulette but no consensus on the issue of having "Roulettes" redirect to the DAB (or its self be one). Yes this was a complicated RM in that it involved both removing primacy from the aerobatics meaning and making the game primary where myself and several others supported the 1st but opposed the 2nd. WP:PLURALPT seems clear on this for example the Paper v Papers example and Orange v Oranges example. The alternative proposal of having no primary topic could certainly be brought up again (though I'd not recommend for a while given the RM was open for over a month) even though the one for having the game probably shouldn't per WP:NOTMOVED, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I've re-read the debate and if anything, I see a consensus against redirecting Roulettes to Roulette (disambiguation). I don't think this fits the paper(s)/orange(s) pattern from WP:PLURALPT at all – it's more akin to the Windows/Snickers pattern, and several posters expressed opinions to that effect: Station1 stated that There's simply no problem here that requires any kind of solution; Andrew Davidson: The display team is an active national institution which still performs over a hundred times each year; B2C: Anyone searching with roulettes is likely seeking this article; Calidum: this is a case where a reader searching for the plural form will undoubtedly be seeking this topic. There were other opinions of course, including Amakuru's and In Ictu Oculi's.
Anyway, I thought it would be best to not address that issue separately in the closing statement: it was not the central subject of the discussion, and there was a rather strong, if not overwhelming, opposition to move or redirect anything. For reopening of the PTOPIC debate, I would like to see some strong evidence that the current setup inconveniences many users. Until then, I think that WP:AINT makes a compelling case. No such user (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there was much evidence presented to show that the Windows/Snickers example applies to Roulette (curve). Station1 mainly argued that no other article would be at the title and BHG in response noted your objection is invalid. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary and IIO noted BrownHairedGirl: you are wasting your time - Station1 has been disruptively opposing titling policy on endless RMs for years. Andrew Davidson does appear to have made a valid argument that by usage (and possibly long-term significance) this topic is the most likely but argued that someone looking for the curve would likely include that term to avoid the game which doesn't appear to make sense since as noted the plural form isn't really used for the game but is for the curve similar to the fact that to read about the fruit (and avoid the colour) someone might type "Oranges". The last 2 opposers didn't provide any evidence of this and again don't even address the curve meaning. I argued that "Roulette (curve) (which is a countable noun) which gets 947 views and The Roulettes that gets 401 views compared to 346 for this article" which suggests things are split and readers would simply be better of getting the DAB straight away and "Google results are mixed between the aerobatics and the band. Additionally the casino meaning shows up in ads at the bottom. Images mainly returns wheels (which doesn't appear to relate to an article here) and Books appears to be split between the casino and curve meanings." both of those arguments IMO do provide enough evidence that there is no clear primary topic for the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delayed replying, RL issues.
The underlying argument of the opposers is that a user looking for the curve is unlikely to type "roulettes" in the search box. Yes, it is possible to use both the casino game and the curve in plural, and your evidence shows that, but their assertion (seemingly likely but not supported by evidence, which is hard to obtain) is that it's an unlikely search term for a Wikipedia entry about those topics.
Anyway, I don't think my close precluded a further discussion about the primary topic issue (although personally, I don't see much point, as the evidence that anyone is inconvenienced by the current setup is mostly anecdotal). No such user (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Affected by Zscaler block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

No such user (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is (probably) 165.225.206.110. (Blocked just minutes ago by User:Yamla.) I've been using addresses in this range probably for a couple of years, it's not an open proxy (that I know of). I'm editing from my office, and my company apparently uses some Zscaler services hosted in Poland (I'm not located in Poland though). No such user (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It isn't generally permitted to use proxies like Zscaler to edit Wikipedia. If you have a need to do so, please follow the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY to request an IP block exemption from a checkuser. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alright, I emailed checkuser-en-wp but haven't received even an acknowledgement of the request in two days.
Researching a bit, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#165.225.197.20, where zzuuzz commented: This is a Zscaler IP. These are typically shared and dynamic, and used by large major corporations (for example AstraZeneca and Carlsberg Group), with lots of potential collateral. They aren't generally regarded as 'open'. ... but I'm not seeing a pressing need to block the rest of it. The 24 Aug block of Special:Contributions/165.225.192.0/18 seems to have produced a lot of collateral, just based on good-faith anonymous contribs, let alone registered users. As outlined in Zscaler#SSL Traffic Considerations, this is a security service used by a lot of companies, and is no different in effect than a dynamic range of a standard provider. Now, Yamla and others, would you please sort this mess out and reverse this block, or whatever? No such user (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Specifically, WP:AN#zscaler_proxies. Ping me if you have any difficulty participating in that discussion! And again, thanks for raising the concern with me. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Closure of RM at Maria Kalesnikava

Hi No such user, thanks for taking the time to close the RM. In your closing statement, you seem to agree that "Maria Kolesnikova" is the most common name in reliable sources in English. You also mention her self-identification. However, WP:Commonname says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). According to WP:Commonname, it is better to use the name in reliable sources even if the self-identified name is different. Do you agree with that? If not, do you think we should follow other policies or guidelines in this case? Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, No such user, thank you for moving the page, but frankly, I don't understand why English Wikipedia prefers the Belarusian language over the Russian. Belarusian is barely spoken in Belarus, and, from what I know, you cannot even hear it in Minsk or other large cities. It's spoken mostly in villages, and reportedly not very well. Its situation is even worse than that of Irish in Ireland. Oh well, whatever. Best regards. P.S. They just published a new census, which shows that the number of native Russian speakers in Belarus has grown even further, and that of Belarusian speakers has decreased. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Please note also that she uses the Belarusian surname (Kalesnikava) but the Russian first name, Maria (in Belarusian, it's Marya). Very confusing. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vpab15: WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME sections of WP:Article Titles both outline that the "best" title needs to balance out sometimes conflicting principles, e.g.: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used [...], editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Even WP:COMMONNAME itself has a disclaimer that it is just a general principle, not an absolute rule: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. One of strong factors here was MOS:IDENTITY, When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent[f] reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. So, there is a conflict between her apparently preferred transliteration, and the form that is most commonly used in sources (note, however, that her notability on the West is very recent). The majority of the participants in the debate stated that her preferred "Kalesnikava" form is also used by reliable sources, is not "wrong" in any sense, and does not hamper recognizability. Technically, we do not always close discussions solely based on majority votes, but I did not find a compelling reason to override it here.

@Taurus Littrow: I am aware that Russian is lingua franca in Belarus, and that status of Belarussian is comparable with Irish language in Ireland. I don't think that Wikipedia strongly prefers Belarus forms, but then I'm not following the situation too closely. My impression is that, although Belarusian generally has less social prestige than Russian, it is often used as the "national" language for things like place names, and by political activists. WP:BELARUSIANNAMES only states that the preferred transliteration is 1979 BGN/PCGN, but does not state when Belarusian is to be preferred over Russian. For established and/or personal names we generally prefer the established form over the BGN, if there's discrepancy. No such user (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

British India

Who the heck are you to close a bogus discussion started by British irredentist promoters on Wikipedia and supported by editors who have a personal gripe against me. Do you know anything about Indian history? You don't. I will not only contest this decision but take it all the way to an independent expert evaluation if it comes to that. If you want to waste my time, so be it. Pathetic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, User:Fowler&fowler. WP:Move review is thataway. No such user (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this for your fine close of the move discussion on the British India article. Great job! LearnIndology (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for being reasonable, fair and compassionate in a very harsh environment. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Timor Leste

Thank you for your comment about...

The guiding policy here is WP:NAMECHANGES, " If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." There was not exactly a "name change" here, but, as with Kiev Kyiv, the endonym "Timor Leste" seems to be gaining traction post-independence in English.

I also call your attention to when you comment on buide's NGRAM. That is only a measure of books, which are usually years behind TV, internet, and news reports.

So it seems that, according to your statement, it is very possible that someday this traction will exceed the threshold. Also, thanks for the examples to use.

I am a little concerned about consensus. When the majority of the use is Timor Leste, that should be the time to change. The people's view will always be behind. It is possible that even decades later, 35-40% may be old fashioned and that could be used as evidence of "no consensus". Solutions? Vowvo (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vowvo: Re consensus: from WP:Consensus#Determining consensus: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. and from WP:!VOTE: "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. In other words, we do not [suppose to] count votes in an open debate, but weigh how much the expounded arguments fit with the policy and known facts. We have closed many, many discussions against majority vote (not always and not regularly, though), so head counting is not so much of issue (but still cannot be entirely discounted).
Still, whatever evidence is brought forward next time should sway those who came to discussion without prejudice, including the closer. The one at User:Austronesier/sandbox/East Leste is pretty strong but a) probably still inconclusive and b) came late in the discussion: it shows that "Timor Leste" was slightly ahead during 2020 in a broad media overview. I'll comment about nGrams on Talk:East Timor. No such user (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comment. It is informative. Vowvo (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ayran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Hey, just wanted to say thank you. I was editing on ip 49.255.235.225 over at Kosovo talk and you responded. My first talk page discussion, and it ended in quick consensus, and it encouraged me to get my account in order. Dauwenkust (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dauwenkust You will probably find out that it's not always plain sailing here, but nonetheless I'm glad to have been helpful, and I hope you will stay around for a while. No such user (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam

I cannot understand how you could close the discussion at Talk:Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam#Requested move 8 May 2021 as moved. Currently, only DaxServer and I have participated in the discussion. Just two participants apart from the nom are not enough to close an RM. We need at least a few more participants to fulfill a discussion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam

An editor has asked for a Move review of Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam. 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. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam

An editor has asked for a Move review of Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam. 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. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Chrysler Horizon

Thanks for cutting the Gordian Knot there. Of all the flawed options I think that this is the best one; I didn't originally propose it because it didn't seem to match the naming guidelines. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Title (album)#Requested move 1 June 2021

Can you add a bit more than "per non" as you closing statement please. While the majority supported the move some (such as me) provided reasons why SONGDAB didn't apply, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: done. No such user (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sajmište

Hi. Yes, it is 2021, not 2020. Sorry, my bad :) PajaBG (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Birky, Chuhuiv Raion

Thank you for closing this. Could you please explain to me however which exactly part of WP:PRECISION mandates the name Birky, Kharkiv Raion rather than Birky, Kharkiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast? We just had the administrative reform of Ukraine which eliminated half ot the raions, and I have been spending the last year consistently renaming them. Your move is at variance with the majority of Ukrainian names. WP:UAPLACE has no status, sometime it gets updated, sometimes it does not. Other countries do not follow this pattern either, we for example do not disambiguate US localities by county without indicating the state, and Russia consistently uses names such as Zarechye, Zarechye Work Settlement, Odintsovsky District, Moscow Oblast. I do not think this is the correct decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: WP:PRECISION states that titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that – since there is only one Kharkiv Raion and only one Chuhuiv Raion, that's sufficient precision and there is no need to add additional precision. I even quoted WP:UAPLACE#Disambiguation If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, disambiguate by district, e.g. write Hrabove, Shatsk Raion, which apparently applies (and is IMO commonsense). I only assumed that the proposer was not intimately familiar with the conventions so I overrode the proposal.
Now, if the practice differs from the guidelines as written, that's a separate issue... I presumed WP:UAPLACE enjoys a broad acceptance. Personally, I find titles as Zarechye, Zarechye Work Settlement, Odintsovsky District, Moscow Oblast an abomination; but I only worked from the guidelines as written, not from personal preferences.
As for the WP:USPLACE, it has always been an exception and subject to much controversy, so can hardly be used as a role model. But in the US, it is uncommon to have places in one state with the same name, while villages in Slavic countries see much lesser variation, as can be seen by sheer size of Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia. Taking a semi-random stab, en:Alexeyevka, Gribanovsky District, Voronezh Oblast maps to ru:Алексеевка (Грибановский район) and uk:Олексіївка (Грибановський район). If there's an outlier, it's actually WP:RUSPLACE on en.wiki. No such user (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:UAPLACE does not reflect anything. Some parts of it have ever been adopted through RfC, others were never scrutinied by the community, and there are too little people working on the topic to make any conclusions. The names you ended up with were not suggested in the discussion and go contrary to the existing practice. If they stay, you have to rename hundreds of other localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter: I have no qualms moving it to the proposed name. But I will note that

1. the "existing practice" is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS flying in the face of the established policy and practice on en.wp (WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE) and a documented NC (WP:UAPLACE).
2. the "existing practice" does not seem to be followed in practice. Why is there Kostiantynivka, Krasnokutsk settlement hromada, Bohodukhiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast but Kostiantynivka, Mykolaiv Oblast? Why Birky, Yavoriv Raion, or Horodok, Rivne Raion, disobeying WP:RUSPLACE or WP:UAPLACE?

If one cannot trust either the written conventions or practice, do not be surprised if the end result is a mess. No such user (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Because a lot of creations (or creations of red links which I eventually followed) were made by users who came here from Ukrainian Wikipedia and moved and created articles without knowing anything (and caring, to be honest) about our policies. The articles on Ukrainian articles here are extremely disordered, they were a complete mess even before the 2020 administrative reform and became one huge mess after the reform. For several years, I have been trying, single-handedly, to clean up this mess. I have not yet gone through Rivne Oblast, otherwise these articles have already been renamed. Kostiantynivka, Mykolaiv Oblast is a more difficult case, I followed the redlink first, and it is not immediately in my workflow for this round, but most likely when I am going through Mykolaiv Oblast, I will rename this one as well. (There is also a question which is the principal name - for instance, one of the Birky's is an urban locality, and all others are rural localities - does this make the urban one the principal meaning? Some users have strong opinions about this. Eventually we will need to create dabs and sets and rename these articles as well, but this is not what I am currently doing).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I defer to those who actually care, even if I might dislike some aspects, so I moved the two Birky articles of Kharkiv Oblast. By the way, those two are adjacent to one another (raion boundary running between them), and the village is much larger and more historically significant than the town (so much on the "urban vs. rural" argument). No such user (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much. Indeed, I personally would npt accept the "more signoficant" argument taken for urban. I will eventually go through the doubtful localities and rename them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Roche

You closed Talk:Roche#Requested move 1 June 2021 as move to Roche and the DAB to Roche (disambiguation). Although the RM had been open for over a month all that people like myself looking at WP:RMC saw was a request of Hoffmann-La Roche → F. Hoffmann-La Roche rather than Hoffmann-La Roche → Roche and Roche → Roche (disambiguation). I think given the long-term significance of some of the topics if this had have been the original request it would have seen opposition but as noted many people don't pay much attention to moves that don't involve primary topics unless they're interested in the topic. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moves of other pages can I suggest that either the pages are moved back and you file a new RM to make this move or you move the company to Roche (company) and put the DAB back at the base name. Note I found this move from a recent changed when the DAB was moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: No, sorry. The request stood open for over a month with little input, and the primary topic assertion was eminently reasonable on its face. I was trying to clean up the mile-long WP:RM backlog, and the move required adjusting additional 30 or so pages from now-moved Category:Roche. Whoever wants to file a new RM or a MR is more than welcome, but I'm not willing to entertain more WP:BURO exercise. No such user (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It may have been reasonable but I still think it was controversial enough to require a discussion that people can see its a primary topic takeover rather than a simple move elsewhere which is simply why it didn't get much attention. Regarding the move to Category:Roche I'd point out that WP:C2D says "unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator)". While I appreciate you're boldness in making some moves that aren't likely to be too controversial I think this one is so, so the "Moves of other pages" of RMCI is likely to apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I grant that you are right on the procedure, but I'm not so sure about the substance: do you seriously contend that the company is the WP:PTOPIC for "Roche"? I'm not a fan of "might be controversial" argumentation: if it's really controversial, someone ought to formulate a cogent argument against it. No such user (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do doubt primacy based on the fact Roche, Cornwall gets over a quarter of the views, Ruché and Roche (surname) combined also get around a quarter and Roche limit gets over twice and probably has more long-term significance even though it may not be called just "Roche" much and The Roches gets over 3x though it has a different name namely plural. Books doesn't appear to return anything for the company. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm amenable to reopening, but please double-check your figures: a quarter of what? When I examine pageviews, [3], the company had 72000 (and counting, under the new pagename) in last 90 days, while Roche, Cornwall had 2185 and Roche (surname) 1142. No such user (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

OK that's reasonable, I still have small doubts about the move but I'm fine with leaving it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RM close

Greetings. Your closing comment at Template talk:R from related word seems like a !vote in the discussion rather than an assessment of consensus. Please fix. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf I quoted a part of Thryduulf's comment (and formatted it as such), which I sometimes do when I find a particularly apt argument. I don't think that a radically different summary is needed, particularly as the discussion could not be closed any other way. No such user (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment this should be the main concern when renaming templates. That seems like taking a side in the debate, which could lead one to question whether the close was fair. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf: Because I was persuaded by opposing arguments such as So if this page move is granted, all those backlinks will need to be fixed; I just don't see where any editors are being mislead by the existing [R from related word], and this will break a far greater number of redirects than it will potentially fix, much overweighing the proposal that would at best bring a minor improvement in wording. Our template naming conventions are minimal, and about everything that WP:TPN says is Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles); on the other hand, we have WP:BOLD One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far reaching consequences because one change can affect lots of pages at once. None of the supporters has addressed who will fix those issues after the move.
Really, I feel that RM is a wrong venue for template naming discussions, which would be better suited for WP:TFD. This one in particular, since it affected issues well beyond the WP:AT scope. No such user (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

RM close request

Hi, could you do me a favour? The RM at Talk:Q-Force (TV series)#Requested move 25 June 2021 seems to have run its course. Would you mind closing it (or relisting if you don't see consensus)? Lennart97 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Lennart97 (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Rio Grande Valley

Hi No such user. Was your closure of the move discussion at Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley#Requested_move_15_May_2021 meant to also move the disambiguation page at Rio Grande Valley (disambiguation), or just to move the page now located at Lower Rio Grande Valley. I interpreted it as the latter based on how you made moves after (and since it seems pretty tough to determine there was a consensus for the dab move even if there maybe was for moving the subject page), but the nominator has gone ahead and made a cut and paste move (since corrected) to move the DAB page as well. If the latter, would you mind letting us know? Or if the former, please feel free to undo my reversion and make the DAB page the primary, thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

RM closure

Your closure of this RM discussion Talk:List_of_people_whose_names_are_used_in_chemical_element_names#Requested_move_3_July_2021 is not a reflection of the proposal nor its discussion. Please revert. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

DePiep What do you propose we do instead of merge? It does not make sense to have this as a stand-alone list, it duplicates the scope. No such user (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That should or could have been the discussion about. But it was not, and so your closure is incorrect. If you want(ed) to argue this, you could have added this as an argument. But as a closure you are not allowed to enforce your own opinion. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, please, we are not bureaucracy. This one and the related RM (Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical elements#Requested move 3 July 2021) had been open for a month and sat at the bottom of the RM backlog, both having a limited participation, and something needed to be done. Would you instead prefer a "no consensus" or a "move" followed by a formal "merge" discussion, typically taking some 3 months to be formally closed?
I'm not really fan of the line of argumentation "you are not allowed to enforce your own opinion" (aka "it's contested because I contest it"). You may call it a "supervote" or an "IAR" action (although merging has been put forward and nobody objected). I'd really like to hear if you have any substantial objection to the result, like, i.e. how the unified list deteriorates readers' experience? No such user (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

About your "enforce" and "aka" part: quite an incorrect (and possibly dishonest) description. I say 'dishonest' because you inject several allusions about me or my opinion, and framing questions as if to question my understanding. Again, and it is quite simple: your opinion should have been added as a !vote, which could have been discussed afterward. And no, you cannot enforce your opinion this way as closer. For the simple reason: you can not claim consensus for your *new* undiscussed outcome. All this for the parallel RM too, of course. -DePiep (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

DePiep. WP:Move review is the proper venue for your grievances. No such user (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop turning this into someone-else-problem. I pointed out the problems on youre talkpage, as is recommended. No need tyo be patronising about how to handle closures. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

per WP:Move review (which explicitly states that one is to raise concerns at the closers talkpage first, as I did), I have reverted your blank-&-redirects edits [4], [5]. Shortly I will list your closures as requested, but I need some time to produce due process (including diffs & description). For now, you are advised to consider edits in this controversial (do not wheelbarrow). -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Move review for List of people whose names are used in chemical element names

An editor has asked for a Move review of List of people whose names are used in chemical element names. 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. DePiep (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Move review for List of places used in the names of chemical elements

An editor has asked for a Move review of List of places used in the names of chemical elements. 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. DePiep (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krvna osveta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serdar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RM close on Afghanistan war

This close was far too early for a discussion that was in no sense in WP:SNOW territory. The RM discussion should at least have been allowed to run the full 7 days, and when closed should have a fully reasoned close going beyond a head-count. Please re-list. FOARP (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

FOARP How was it not in WP:SNOW territory? It lasted for four days and had over 100 participants. I do not normally take or give headcount, but judge on the strength of the arguments, which were overwhelmingly concluding that the war is practically over. I gave what I consider a "full-reasoned close". There was an overwhelming support for the move, and nothing indicated that the war will change the course or that the discussion will change the course. We are not the bureaucracy, and having a 7-day discussion on possibly the most viewed article at the moment is not productive. No such user (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just after reading your improper response to the sensible request above, I have opened a thread on WP:AN to which you can respond and also notified you there. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RM close on War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)

Hi. I made a move request on the Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) page ([move 19 August 2021]).
Sorry that I created it before the other was closed. I didn't know about the rule but I have seen more move requests concurrently on other talk pages and I thought it is allowed.
On the other hand, can I get a clarification on why do you think it will not succeed? I understand that the ending year has been set to 2021 but the point of the request wasn't the year. I just wanted to know what people think about the title being more specific because to me the name "War in Afghanistan" is just too generic. I mean all the wars in the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) could be named War in Afghanistan. BnC78 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

BnC78 Apologies if I came across as rude. However, the title you proposed will hardly be accepted because the war was not waged only by the U.S, and in fact many significant operations were executed by the Afghan army and paramilitaries. It's not U.S. War in Vietnam despite overwhelming American involvement, but the Vietnam War. We title the articles by their common names, and "U.S. War in Afghanistan" is hardly used in sources (except when specifically dealing with the American role). Plus, please have in mind that this is a major article, probably read by million readers this month, so jumping into an ill-prepared requested move is a bad idea. No such user (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. BnC78 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Politics of Afghanistan

Hello, No such user. You have new messages at Talk:Politics of Afghanistan#Requested move 25 August 2021.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik V

The article about the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine was moved to that title several months ago because it was affected by an RM. Is that title incorrect? Articles about other COVID-19 vaccines have titles that include either the name of the manufacturer or the brand name only. In this case, however, Sputnik V is already the common name while Gamaleya is the manufacturer. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: Not sure I follow. I moved articles about the major vaccines to their common names, which may be the trade name or manufacturer name(s) depending on case. I'm sure you'll agree that the Russian vaccine is known as "Sputnik V" (and its manufacturer "Gamaleya" is not broadly know), while the Pfizer's one is known as "Pfizer–BioNTech" (and not by its trade name Comirnaty nor its INN Tozinomeran). No such user (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Sputnik V is the common name because it is widely known by that name. However, unlike CoronaVac, the title of the article about Sputnik V contains the phrase "COVID-19 vaccine". Is it because Sputnik V is a redirect? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Thank you very much because you moved my userpage back. Just a question, can any user move a page?, why did this happen to me. Can I move a page too? clipred (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: Basically yes, any user with minimal tenure ("autoconfirmed") can move any page, if the target is (basically) unoccupied (I'm a WP:Page mover so I can also do that over most "occupied" titles). See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Move restrictions. It is generally useful to move or archive your own talk page and subpages, but I concur it's not a good idea to mess with someone else's. Incidents like the one you encountered are very rare though, and the offenders may be quickly blocked, as it amounts to a form of WP:Harrassment. No such user (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. clipred (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alp Arslan National Drama Theater

Given the previous title used British English, how do you justify the new title using American English per WP:RETAIN? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I missed "theatre" in the previous title, honestly, but the article text consistently used theater at the time I moved it. The original version liberally mixed both forms. There is also mix in Category:Theatres in Ashgabat. I do not have a personal preference. No such user (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I really think the title should retain the variety of English originally used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so too, but, as I said, it is not determinable (unless you treat "bad English", the informal international standard, as one). I won't object if you do it yourself, but I cannot be bothered. I had sincerely thought it was AmEng. No such user (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about "Bad English"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bir Shumsher Jang Bahadur Rana

Hey No such user, I saw that you moved Indra Jatra. If you do not mind, could you move this page as well. Thanks. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For being an awesome and fair closer. ––FormalDude talk 09:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussing RM closes

Hey No such user,

I see you're an active RM closer. Recently I got into RM closing too. Is there like a forum for us RM closers where we can discuss best practices? I sure have a few questions to ask (I can ask them here, but just curious if something like this already exists)? VR _talk 01:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey VR. There is no established forum, as far as I know. I suppose that Wikipedia talk:Requested moves is the most appropriate place, but not many people have it on their watchlist (myself included... but fixed now). No such user (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. But since we're talking, can you take a look at this? I think there might be contradictions in policy regarding move closures, but I could be wrong.VR _talk 15:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion is the venue. Nardog (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Hallo, noticing your revert, I was wondering if you know where to find information about linking to wikidata. Thanks. ~~ Lotje (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lotje. I haven't seen Wikidata linked anywhere from article text in this manner, and MOS:IWL only mentions Wiktionary and Wikisource as permissible links. Rules aside, I don't see anything in the Wikidata entry that cannot be inferred from the existing text (he's a Belgian prosecutor, a male and a human at that). {{Interlanguage link}} (aka Ill) is also rather common, in order to link to a more comprehensive article in another language, if there is one (I'd expect Flemish or Dutch here...). Whoops, now I see there is indeed :nl, so we can substitute {{Q}} with {{Ill}}, although it's questionable if he's worth cross-linking, since he's only mentioned in passing in an article about something entirely else. No such user (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Distinction between Ravens and Crows

My edit asking for a citation was rescinded as "generally unhelpful" which seems clearly against Wikipedia's stated policy of any editor being free to request a citation for unsubstantiated claims. In other words, it's draconian and flies in the face of the established policy, whoch requires that claims of fact in encyclopedia articles be evidence-based. The request for a citation needs to be satisfied, not repressed. HarmonicSphere (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you seriously dispute that crows are smaller than ravens, or just trying to be obnoxious? If you seriously do, you could do everyone a favor and find a citation yourself. No such user (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I think there's some misunderstanding as to what I asked for a citation for. If you look at my original edit, you'll see the claim I asked supporting evidence for said that there is no clear distinction between crows and ravens — a claim you're now saying I supported, but which I was asking for a citation for. I'm trying to have a civil conversation about honouring the spirit of evidence-based articles by doing what Wikipedians are supposed to do, which is ask for a reputable source for claims... and you're responding to that by being insulting and condescending. My understanding that there *is* a difference, one most detectable by the calls of these different subcategories of Corvid species, is based on a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ5iippq3rA) put out by the [Cornell Lab of Ornithology](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5Lz88Rt3GT75YT2ORAmaMQ), which appears a reputable and reliable source, which declares that crows caw (a long, drawn-out cry), whereas ravens emit deep, guttural croaks. There are other differences as well, including size, body shape, and gregariousness. Perhaps you could do us all a favour next time and try to ensure you understand your critic's intentions and meaning before stooping to insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonicSphere (talk • contribs)

@HarmonicSphere: So, instead of clarifying what was unclear on the article's talk page, you came to mine to teach me about policy, and call that "trying to have civil conversation"?
The sentence apparently refers to all names given to 40+ species within the entire genus, list of Corvus species; i.e. there's no phylogenetic reason to differentiate a dozen species called "ravens" from 30 or so called "crows" as a group. It does not say that the carrion crow or American crow are the same species as the common raven, and there is indeed a number of differences, as evident by the videos you link to. A similar situation exists for e.g. "pigeons" and "doves" (list of Columbidae species), or "cormorants" and "shags" (List of cormorant species) – "classification" by their common names is not backed up by a systematic scientific difference. No such user (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

Sometimes I miss things that are obvious. Why did you close this move review (of a RM closed by 力 as "not moved") as "Endorsed"? As I look through the RM, the most relevant piece of evidence seems to have been this table provided by Tecumseh which would seem to favor Astana over Nur-Sultan. I'm not at all defending the user or their poor behavior. As you know, I sometimes close moves and your comments will help me figure out why the discussions have been closed the way they were. I'm sure there's a reason and I just don't seem to be seeing it at the moment (its been a long day).VR _talk 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Because no one deemed his evidence sufficient. Indeed, a casual look at his search [6] shows that the results are garbage, including: "Astana process", Indian and Indonesian authors surnamed Astana, Astana International Financial Center, "Kajian Neuroscience Wisata Ziarah Desa Astana Kecamatan Gunugng Jati Kabupaten Cirebon" etc. etc. No such user (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the answer. Crafting searches so that they don't include irrelevant hits is always tricky.VR _talk 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

.

plpk Excellenc1 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ivo Andrić

I already responded at your SPI mention, I haven't seen this in quite a while so I don't recognize it trivially any more. But I don't think it will matter, if what we see so far is representative. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion to rename Cross-country skiing (sport) may be of interest to you

...at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Move to: Cross-country ski competition?. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nico Krijno

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nico Krijno requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wsimag.com/art/55070-nico-krijno. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Achieving consensus at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)?

No such user, you are invited to participate in a ranked-choice poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered, which may help arrive at a consensus among the choices discussed. I have set up an opportunity for you to do so. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your re-close

First, I find it inappropriate to revert an editors close without clear reason; if you disagreed with it, you should have discussed it with them, and then taken it to MRV if you felt it was necessary.

Second, can you explain how you assessed consensus? In particular, your statement that "Spacefarers" has never enjoyed a broad consensus, and should anyone disagree they should propose it in a RM, given that the article has been stable at spacefarers for four years and thus the onus is on those who oppose that title, not those that support it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The RM closes by Sceptre have a long and troubled history, which could be best examined by perusing Move Review archives for the last couple of years. How come that they had like dozen challenged closes in the past year? Honestly, I've had enough of their supervotes at this point.

On to the substance: nobody in the RM discussion has really challenged the assertion that "astronauts" is the neutral, English-language common term for people who traveled into space. There were several explicit supports for "astronauts". Those who expressed concern mainly did so on the procedural grounds (that "spacefarers" was a long-standing title, but it has never been tested in a RM, and Spacefarer redirects to human spaceflight). We have Category:Women astronauts and Category:Astronauts and article Astronaut. No such user (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I know about their troubled history; there are two open at the moment, one of which I opened. However, I'm not seeing the "components" of a supervote here; my reading of the discussion would be that there is broad support to move from "Astronauts" to "astronauts", but a sufficiently large number of editors find the move from "spacefarers" to "Astronauts" to be sufficiently controversial that it should be discussed directly. I would add that challenges to the assertion were likely waiting for the actual RM, as it was tangential to the current move request which is clearly non-controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal: The RM opening was tainted to an extent, since Astronaut→astronaut was uncontroversial and could have gone through WP:RMTR, but the previous botched move spacefarers→Astronauts should have been declared. Yaksar, Crouch;Swale and yourself did express concerns to that effect and suggested restoring to status quo ante, but generally found "astronauts" acceptable. Dream Focus, Rreagan007 and powera then provided cogent arguments as to why "astronauts" is in line with CRITERIA (consistency and recognizability). In sum, nobody in the discussion really advocated "spacefarers" on its merits, so I don't see how it could possibly emerged as RM result. It's fine to immediately revert an undiscussed move on procedural grounds, but doing that after a week of discussion among 5-6 participants who generally (if cautiously) preferred a different title is in my opinion just bureaucratic. No such user (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with BilledMammal in that reverting a close without discussion that was not obviously problematic is not a good idea. I also agree that the spacefarers title was in place since 2018 and wasn't complained about previously so was clearly the stable title. Can I suggest that you restore Sceptre's close and if you feel "astronauts" is correct you can start a new RM (or take it to move review) for that specifically, thanks. Assessing consensus was difficult as you noted because there was the uncontroversial issue of capitalization and the potentially controversial move from spacefarers to astronauts so I think reverting back to the stable title and starting a new RM from it is the best way forward. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sceptre: So that they know this discussion is going on. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No discussion was ever had to change it to List of female spacefarers with the edit summary (Includes non-astronauts). That is not a valid reason for the change but no one cared enough to challenge it at the time. It makes no sense to change it back now unless enough people actually believe it should be and can give a good reason. Procedural is not a valid reason. Dream Focus 22:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

While I probably should have discussed with Sceptre first, I disagree that it was "not obviously problematic". That the procedure had not been followed to a iota is not a very strong reason to restore the old title, particularly after a RM was held. For more obscure articles such as this one, long-time title stability is usually a result of no one having bothered to challenge it since it was created or silently moved. I'm generally disinclined to redo things just for procedure's sake, and I concur with Dream Focus that It makes no sense to change it back now unless enough people actually believe it should be and can give a good reason, and no one has given a reason based on WP:CRITERIA so far. No such user (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Precision and recognizability, due to the issues with using Astronauts for Cosmonauts and Taikonauts. BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but should we have that discussion on every page that concerns astronauts? I believe the matter was resolved in strong favor of "astronaut", as affirmed by e.g. Talk:Astronaut#Requested move 9 September 2020. No such user (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A bundled RM could be appropriate, but an RM is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to third the expressed discomfort with unilaterally reverting a close rather than following the established process of talk page discussion -> MRV. I'm not familiar with the closer and their supposedly storied history with supervotes/MRV, but if it's as bad as you say, it seems like the real solution would be to start a discussion to establish community consensus to topic-ban them from RM closes. Colin M (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin M Acknowledged; I accept {{trout}} for not being collegial with Sceptre. They certainly do have experience, and I appreciate their readiness to close tough discussions, although it's been met with mixed approval by the MR community. I don't think the rate of their mistakes is nowhere as near as to warrant a topic-ban, and I would oppose it if proposed. No such user (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hijrah

Regarding this close; how did you decide for "Hijrah" rather than "Hijra"? BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal: Hijra was not an option, since it is a dab page, with Hijra (South Asia) arguably the primary topic. "Hijrah" was the primary or secondary choice of several posters in the discussion, and fits well with the WP:COMMONNAME provision When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. No such user (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The article could have been moved to Hijra with a disambiguation; that would have been an acceptable close. BilledMammal (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it used to reside at Hijra (Islam), but no one favored (or mentioned) that particular option. "Hijrah" is well supported by sources, by posters in the discussion (it was the first option for Iskandar323, Neocorelight and Amakuru, and second by Hairy Dude; you and Rreagan007 only supported "Hijra" but neglected to address the disambiguation issues), and by the policy excerpt I quoted above. Amakuru's point that ngrams are skewed by results for transgender "Hijra" was left unrefuted. I stand by the close. No such user (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

RM close of The In Between

I have significant concerns about your close of Talk:The_In_Between_(2022_film)#Requested move 11 February 2022. As you pretty much state in your closing statement, you chose to follow the view of one participant in the discussion, against the views of the nom (myself) and the other 3 participants. In the case of the first requested move, for the album, the nom and 3 participants supported the move as proposed, with one suggesting a different move, so I do not understand how you reasoned the consensus was to move to a more complicated title with unnecessary disambiguation favored by only one user. Apparently you agreed this should be disambiguated with The In-Between (musical), which you then decided to nominate for deletion!

For the second move (whether the film is the primary topic or not), myself and another user argued vehemently in support of moving to the base term, two other users were neutral, and again just one participant was against. In this case I either see weak consensus in support of the the move as proposed, or failing that, no consensus, meaning the film article should have been left at The In Between (film). But again, you decided there was consensus for what only a single participant advocated. More baffling is that you then decided to keep The In Between (film) as a redirect to the 2022 film, "you guess". This is not how parenthetical disambiguation works. If there is no primary topic, either there is a single film with the base term "The In Between" and the article for the film should be at The In Between (film) as it was, or there is more than 1 film that needs to be disambiguated, and "The In Between (film)" should target the disambiguation page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. In my view, there is only one film spelled "The In Between", and similarly spelled films are already disambiguated by WP:SMALLDETAILS and hatnotes to the disambiguation page and/or other films are sufficient to get users seeking those other films to the proper article. We only only use parenthetical disambiguation to the text necessary to disambiguate titles with the same spelling.

Lastly, obviously a minor point, but you should tag your RM closes with {{RMnac}} or {{RMpmc}}. Personally, as a page mover myself, I would not wade into attempting to close such a controversial discussion, taking WP:RMNAC and WP:NAC very seriously. I realize not many admins close RM discussions currently, but close calls should not be made my non-admins IMHO.

So, I request at a minimum you revise your close and fix the moves given the above, or reopen and relist the discussion to allow for more participation and someone else to close the discussion later. Otherwise, I must take this to move review. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In my analysis above, I missed Colin M's comments, who also was in support of the original proposal. So that makes the consensus for the original proposal even stronger for making the film the primary topic (nom + 2 users in favor, 2 neutral, 1 opposed), and the consensus you saw more incorrect. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• No such user, this close at Talk:The_In_Between_(2022_film)#Requested move 11 February 2022 was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE. Please revert your close and let someone else evaluate consensus to avoid putting the community through a move review. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 06:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mdewman6:, I explicitly stated that there was not clear consensus as to the best titles and invoked WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, inviting Should anyone disagree, feel free to open a RM, didn't I?
    Yes, it was a protracted discussion that had to be closed somehow so I picked up the option that seemed most reasonable to me; you're certainly free to disagree. I see no point in relisting, since it had been open for 3 weeks.
    Now, you seem to state there was consensus for "The In Between (film)" and I disagree. Apart from the concerns by the oppose/neutral voters, there are other points to consider:
    • The 2022 film is ambiguous with The In-Between (2019 film), In Between (1994 film), and In Between (2016 film). "The" and hyphen in titles are poor disambiguators (and I explicitly stated that) and there was no consensus that WP:SMALLDETAILS should apply here (on the contrary, there were explicit statements to the contrary).
    • It hardly passes the WP:INCDAB bar: consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold [...] is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation.

  As I did not see enough evidence for this bar (either by posters or by submitted evidence) to be satisfied, the general approach is to disambiguate when in doubt.

  I did nominate The In-Between (musical) for deletion since I stumbled upon it, but it is completely irrelevant for the close.

  Finally, I never use {{RMpmc}} nor ever will; its use is not mandated to a policy. I find it antithetical to Wikipedian principles, and any close should be interpreted on its merits rather than on the closer's perceived authority. No such user (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I was asked by Born2cycle on my talk page to review this close, so I've had a look at it (with no prejudice towards B2C's position and as an independent uninvolved observer) and I have to say that IMHO I agree that the close doesn't seem to reflect the discussion. Between the three who explicitly favoured the original proposal and the other two who were neutral on the primary-topic status of the film, that's a fairly clear cut consensus to make the 2022 film the primary topic. And there is no policy or evidence argument saying it should not be so, given the very heavy lead it enjoys in page views. Indeed, with a page-view ratio that strong, it would be very rare for any topic not to be deemed the primary, all other things being equal. So your citing of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS doesn't seem to be called for - there is a very good option, and that's to move the film to the base name as proposed, which also has the side bonus of making the 2019/2022 ambiguity moot. Finally, I join Mdewman6 in questioning your decision to "I guess" redirect The In Between (film) to The In Between (2022 film). Leaving the redirect that way means that in fact the 2022 film has been deemed primary over the others, so would reside at the partially-disambiguated name similar to the decision made at Talk:Thriller_(album)/Archive_7#Requested_move_4_November_2019. I join the two users above in requesting for you to please either reopen this or amend the close, because I find it unlikely the close would be endorsed if it ends up at move review. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Move review for The In Between (2022 film)

An editor has asked for a Move review of The In Between (2022 film). 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. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo border

The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion. --Coldtrack (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. In case you are interested, I have begun a discussion. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

A link

Really? It's a simple port link. This does not "bloat" pages. Does any addition the page "bloat" it as well? C'mon now. Seems you don't like portals, and if my presumption is correct, than all the more power to you. However, a simple See also link and one link does not bloat a thing. It's all good. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Northamerica1000: a relevant addition would not bloat a page; However, I don't think adding a link to the portal (and the whole See also section along) enhances reading experience for anyone interested in the Crucible curse. While I'm generally indifferent to portals specifically, I'm rather wary of indiscriminate spamming of articles with overblown links, infoboxes, navboxes, sidebars and like. Incidentally, I've just removed 25 kB of indiscriminate content here, and 5 kB here that were just occupying screen estate without contributing anything to the articles, and probably without ever being read. IOW, I'd rather that you find another place to link the portals than potentially thousands of "See also" sections cue sports articles.
As for the policy-based reasons: WP:ORPHAN only mentions articles, and does not mention portals even once. I don't see why a portal should not be orphaned from the article space. No such user (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While we disagree, thanks for your candid response. I think that the Crucible curse article only benefits from the portal link. It's a neat topic about how every snooker world champion never realized it the next year. I understand your perspective, but please consider leaving the portal link in place for this article. FWIW, it is listed in the Selected articles section of the portal, and it's a great topic. Long live the Cue sports portal. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo country status and border

You're wrong here about Kosovo. Yes the consensus was all about how to talk about its northern and eastern border primarily, and the consensus was to treat Kosovo as a fully fledged country per the neutral perspective, and not as some disputed territory in limbo per the pro-Serb POV. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sava

You were technicly correct reverting ([7]). You evidently didn't check the source that was subsequently added ([8]). It does not exactly support the claim.

I am trying to figure out what it is, though, so I should ask for references elsewhere. 89.15.236.51 (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Short-track

Hello. This edit in concert with a move you did, disabled several links from the infobox. I assume this happened because these six articles, 2002–2022 (example: Short track speed skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics) have no hyphen in their titles nor redirects as such. I have for now removed the hyphen you had added here, and that restored the links.

Just letting you know in case there is more to do relating to all this to get it correct as intended. In other words, do the 2002–2022 articles still need to be moved to include the hyphen in their titles? --DB1729 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DB1729: Thanks for spotting and fixing that. As far as I know, there has been a follow-up RM somewhere for the short-track Olympic events, but it was presumably closed as unsuccessful. Can't find it though (perhaps HandsomeFella would know). If I'm right, that leaves us with an inconsistent naming scheme for the sport... oh well. No such user (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There's some kind of dynamics on the infobox there. If the article exists, correctly spelled, there's a link to it, otherwise not.

We need to fix consistency here. I'll see when I can get it done. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me, if the effort to rename has stalled, then simply creating redirects with the hyphen as applicable would have solved the problem, or at least it would've solved the problem I had noticed. DB1729 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

...but yes, a consistent naming scheme would be optimal if that can be done. DB1729 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Belgrade

I have nominated Belgrade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, No such user,

Before doing a page move, please check "What links here". If there are redirects to the page, please leave a redirect when you move the article to its new title. Otherwise, valid redirects become broken and can end up deleted by one of our bots if no one fixes them in time. Alternatively, if you really do not want to leave a redirect, please manually fix all existing redirects so that they point to the correct target page. This is especially true if you are moving a popular or longstanding article that has been moved due to vandalism. Often there is a tendency to not want to leave a redirect from the "bad title" it was moved to but I've seen this result in dozens of broken redirects with some older articles. If you leave a redirect, then one of our more helpful bots can correct all of those redirects so they point back to the correct name. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Rest assured that I pay utmost attention to those details; I have moved thousands of pages (of course, I'm not immune from errors so feel free to point them out). Now, it seems that you misinterpreted some of my (granted, complicated) moves surrounding Bela Crkva (disambiguation); it involved a double WP:PAGESWAP. However, Bela Crkva, Banat should point to Bela Crkva, as I did here not to the disambiguation page as you did.
What I don't to is to fix double redirects, which is the job of our bots. I'm not sure why they haven't catched up Bela Crkva (Vojvodina) yet. No such user (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Manually fixed double redirects. Apparently, I confused bots as well. No such user (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Re Farux

Nsu, I the closer did not boldly move the title to Farux per NOGOODOPTIONS. NOGOODOPTIONS requires that there be a consensus against the old title but no consensus where to move it. I moved the article back to Farux in accordance with article titling policy noted in the move review and in my RM closure. Why did you make that up? Now the article stays at a title that has had no discussion nor consensus? Over a title that has been stable for more than 12 years? What ever. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Paine, I just favored the arguments of Colin M and Mellohi (supported by a couple other posters) that you cannot consider "Farux" to be a 'stable' or 'consensus' title – see WP:WEAKSILENCE and particularly the points #2 and #3 therein. After all, it's a village of 72 in the middle of nowhere, and it's been reasonably argued that no one in 12 years found it worthwhile to think about, let alone challenge the bad transliteration apparently originating somewhere from the GNIS database. Note that your move to Farux was reverted to Farukh by AntonSamuel, the first supporter of Parukh, i.e. to the title he does not support personally. So, there's no single substantial reason from WP:CRITERIA that supports the "Farux" title – you might as well have moved it to Piña Colada or whatever, it would be just as bad. We all agree it was a good-faith, nice try, but it did not work out in the end. My motive was just to cut that particular Gordian knot we often see on the MR – substantially, there's no consensus on the best title, but at least let's leave it at one that makes sense. No such user (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Against policy, but like I said: what ever. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to appeal to you one more time, because I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't understand your MRV closure. I've always respected your closes, because you're an experienced editor, however this time I think you're wrong. The whole entire reason that I took the situation to MRV was because I wanted to show the editor who move-warred with me and moved the page back to "Farukh" after I closed the RM that what he did was wrong and would not be supported at MRV. And I think the MRV bored that out. Sure there were a couple of editors who misguidedly went against policy, but I think I rebutted them effectively. So what really matters here is that 1) there is a fairly inexperienced editor who now thinks they can go against a closer's decision and move a page wherever they want, and 2) there is now an article on Wikipedia that is titled with a name that has not achieved consensus, when it should be titled according to policy with a name that actually has achieved consensus. So please help me to understand how the editor's move war with me is the right place to leave this? In other words, if you had found no consensus in that RM to either move to the proposed title or to keep the old title, and you had moved the page to its stable title, but then an inexperienced editor had reverted your page move, what would you have done? Just trying to understand and learn something here, my friend. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Paine, we're in the territory uncharted by policy. That page has never had a consensus title, but it obviously has to have one. That leaves us with three unsatisfactory choices:

1. The "stable" title Farux; yes, you moved it there in good faith, but it has been reasonably shown to be an incorrect transliteration from whatever language, failing all CRITERIA, and wasn't supported by any MR participant.
2. A correct Azeri transliteration Farukh, where it currently resides. The problem is that it was attained by "first mover" advantage and some move-warring.
3. A correct Armenian transliteration Parukh.

While your revert to the stable title was within letter of the policy indeed, it has been challenged on on the substance, as simply incorrect and not having any support by either sources or editors. Which leaves us to pick another option as less bad than that one. So it has been picked somehow, and until a new move-war or a better argued RM emerges, let's leave it there. No such user (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved anyway

On 1 July 2021 you closed a move request for page Matter (standard) to Matter (connectivity protocol), because there was no consensus for the move. I agree with you, because Matter is more than just a connectivity protocol; rather, it is a standard that includes a protocol.

Subsequently on 15 June 2022‎ a user called ‪The Anome moved the page anyway.‬

‪Can I just move it back to its original name, or is there a process that needs to be followed? Betterkeks (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)‬

Betterkeks – since the article title has never had a "certified" consensus, I suppose any bold move (such as The Anome's) is a fair game, procedurally speaking. So, if you disagree with the new title, you're free to revert it yourself per WP:BRD, or ask for revert at the appropriate section in WP:RMTR. Of course, explaining why you disagree with that title on the talk page and/or edit summary would be nice as a courtesy; perhaps you can together find a better title (after all, not every title discussion has to go through RM). No such user (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sister (Sisters song)

Hi No such user! Apologies for the late follow-up -- as you closed the MR at Talk:S!sters, would you also be able to move the associated article at Sister (Sisters song) to Sister (S!sters song)?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yaksar: you're technically right it should be moved, but frankly I can't be bothered. In the meantime, S!sters was merged into Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019, rendering spelling of the disambiguator pretty much irrelevant – there's no article or category we need to be consistent with. No such user (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit of the article "In Soviet Russia"

Dear No such user, the joke "In Soviet Russia" would be purely political, if it was stated e.g. as follows: "in USSR" or "in Soviet Union" or the like. But it actually refers to the part of the former USSR that was populated predominantly by ethnic Russians (i.e. the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).

Besides, according to the article, the joke is often "said with a heavy Russian accent" and "with English grammatical errors stereotypical of Russians", which means it is really referring to an ethnic stereotype, thus matching the definition given in the Wikipedia article "Ethnic joke".

I'd ask of you a favor to review your edit. Alexschneider250 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexschneider250: Please use article talk pages for content discussion. I still do not see any ethnic stereotyping in what you describe that would justify its inclusion in the category, and it was also briefly discussed in the "Requested move 14 December 2020" at the talk page. No such user (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarify revision of 1105279785

I'd like some clarification of the undo 1105281260.

First, thank you for the pointer to MOS:CQ. The guide is very clear: use straight quotes, not curly.

It seems to me, however, this is an instance of WP:IAR or as the introductory text to MOS states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Why do I think it is WP:IAR? Because the text in question is about the very topic of the historical convention of using single typographic quotes for glosses and how they're rendered. There is precedent too on Wikipedia, for example the article Quotation marks in English#Smart_quotes.

No printed book I know of uses straight quotes for glosses, since they'd be confused with apostrophes. For example, the OED online edition uses straight quotes too, with the exception of glosses, since they'd easily be confused with apostrophes.

If you're not convinced, I could as an alternative also include an example thumbnail of a book using this convention in the article. 'wɪnd (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd: Generally, WP:IAR is applicable when everyone agrees that the end result is an improvement, even if not all rules have been followed to a iota. But here, leaving curly quotes in Gloss (annotation) would be at odds how we (rightly or wrongly) write glosses across Wikipedia (with straight single quotes, i.e. apostrophes). I have a certain linguistic background and I've personally changed dozens of glosses from various forms (usually double quotes) into straight single quotes across many articles.

Now, I do trust you that curly quotes are more often/universally used for glosses in dictionaries, but you should probably raise that issue at WT:LINGUISTICS first, and if a consensus emerges, codify the exception at MOS:CQ. Actually, it's addressed in more detail at MOS:SINGLE, which uses straight single quotes in the examples.

I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I would regard mandating curly quotes on WP as a nuisance, since the risk of confusion with apostrophes in our typical contexts is negliglible. But if you have a typographical/linguistic source that unambiguously states that glosses are typically enclosed in smart quotes in dictionaries, since straight quotes could be easily confused with apostrophes, please do include it in the Gloss (annotation) article (after all, we use smart quotes in Quotation marks in English#Smart_quotes.) But if you just leave it assumed in the article like that, some pedant will eventually come and change it back. No such user (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@No such user Thank you. As a new Wikipedia user, your answer is very helpful and supportive to me. Thank you for clarifying things. I now see the complexity of this, which I didn't see before. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Update. I added a new topic on WT:LINGUISTICS. I couldn't find a source for could easily be confused with apostrophes so far, my only evidence is precedence offline and online. 'wɪnd (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion on Talk:North Circular Road

Hi,

It looks like you didn't fill this in correctly. This is what it says....

"The result of the move request was: North Circular Road, London"

The page hasn't been moved to that title, so that doesn't appear to be what you meant. Please check and amend as necessary. — Smjg (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed now. I mis-copied the RM close template and apparently forgot to preview the page. No such user (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion participation

Recently I created the Discussion

Please participate in discsussion and give the opinion? Footwiks (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please revert your Lesbos edit

Hello,

The entire point of my edit was that "Lesbos or Lesvos" is - Unclear - Grammatically problematic - Looks terrible - Overall just doesn't fit well Please stop "cutting it back down". Most people aren't going to check the footnote and are just going to see this mess of a wording. It's ugly and unclear for most people. Amyipdev (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mrld

Hi. Please leave the tag until it passes through NPP. The tag is there to assist other reviewers who take a look at the article. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Stale RfC

Hi No such user. What is the procedure to be taken after a RfC goes stale? I can't find anything about this on Wikipedia policy. Super Ψ Dro 12:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus: I honestly don't know. I suppose, make a bold move and wait if anyone objects (like I did)? :) No such user (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Attitude control (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Attitude control (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:No man is an island

Hi, No such user. Could I inquire about your rationale for closing the RM at Talk:No man is an island as not moved? By my count it's 2-1 explicit support/oppose, 1 implying an amount of support, 1 implying an amount of opposition. Wouldn't a relist make more sense there? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, sure. Actually, I was swayed by Joy's analysis, who has not formally !voted, but provided a valuable input indicating that many users are content in learning the phrase's origin from the dab page and do not go further. I concede it was is an edge case, and there's no clear metrics what is "best" for readers, so everyone basically went by their hunch. While "no consensus" or "relist" were both viable options, I felt that we need much more than two hunches "for", one "against" and one "but" for a primary topic grab. And when in doubt, it is best to disambiguate. No such user (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

With respect, NSU, that seems like a good reason to !vote, not a reason to close with consensus. You may have found Joy's argument persuasive, but the only other editor in the RM to address it rather saw it as a reason to move. I'm not saying there was necessarily a consensus to move here, although I think it was closer to that than to anything else. Would you consider relisting? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Obliged. However, I'm not sure if undo+{{RM relist}} will trigger the RMCD bot to actually relist it at RM - Wbm1058? No such user (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to do it. wbm1058 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we put some relisting instructions related with RM reopenings and post-Move Review actions... somwehere?? Template:RM relist/doc or WP:RMRELIST look like good candidates. It's like third time I'm asking for your help in such matters, I'd prefer knowing how to fish. No such user (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The instructions at Template:RM relist/doc or WP:RMRELIST are already pretty substantial and I think should already cover normal relistings which are done on open requested-moves which have never been closed. Let me know if there's something unclear to you about the normal relisting process for open RMs.

I think your issue is that the instructions are unclear on how to re-open and relist. That's best covered at WP:Move review and/or Wikipedia:Move review/Administrator instructions. Think of your situation as a "speedy, uncontested move review"; other than the lack of the formal process and the need to formally close the formal move review process, the instructions should be the same. @Paine Ellsworth: is more active in move reviews and I think has closed many more of them than I have. Maybe he can help you with making the "reopen and relist" instructions there easier to follow. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do this frequently as I'm pretty malleable when it comes to no-consensus outcomes. I just revert my closure, add {{subst:RM relist}} to the end of the RM's opening statement after the nom's sig and past relists, and then publish. The RMCD bot does the rest. And yes, I do check that that from time to time. Awesome bot! (Usually leave a note so other editors know what's happened.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out, NSU, and thanks to others for chipping in. I will just say, I've found that closing discussions is one of the most utterly thankless jobs on Wikipedia, with people quick to tell you if you did it wrong (or "wrong") and recognition infrequent for all thhe other times. So, I do thank you for the hard work you do. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If we do this for the enormous gratitude we receive, then we might want to rethink why we're here, Tamzin. Found this essay a long time ago. Hope it helps!. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Re:Sting.com domain name dispute COI tag

Not too sure why this was removed? The article was written in large part by User:MichaelUrvan, which appears to be Michael Urvan himself. The article as it reads today is very similar to the one here in 2010, it has not been significantly improved over the years. Writing your own Wikipedia article is definitely a violation of WP:COI, and I'm concerned that it may need serious copyediting to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. 162 etc. (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

162 etc.: Yes, I know it was written by Urvan himself, but it was some 15 years ago. I think it's irrelevant if the article reasonably conforms to policies now. The question is, what is anyone supposed to do with the article having that information? If you're concerned that it may need serious copyediting please elaborate specific concerns, or, better still, address them yourself. Now that the article has been refocused to the legal case rather than Urvan, I don't see particular problems, it's short and mostly factual. The tag was removed some 5 years ago, with no one objecting (granted, it's not a much-viewed article). Tags should be actionable, not used as "badges of shame". No such user (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that the tag was removed by User:MichaelUrvan. The COI concerns were never addressed. You're correct that this is a mostly unimportant article (my earlier suggestion was to send it to AfD) and not many people are interested in improving it, including myself. 162 etc. (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I made some edits. I was able to see a COI problem. Namely, the wording looked as if it tried to disassociate, as much as possible, Sting from 'sting' by consistently referring to him, in a contrived way, that is unhelpful to readers, as Gordon Sumner. At the same, the time partially unsourced history of Urvan's online/gaming activities tries to establish, as strongly as possible, his personal connection with the nickname Sting. A pretty ridiculous article, but I don't think that a top tag can help here. —Alalch E. 23:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi No such user, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 23:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann: Thanks for the invitation, but not interested. No such user (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Internal market" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Internal market 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 August 13 § Internal market until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You closed the RM as "Moved" but forgot to move

The RM at 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes was closed as "Moved to 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" but the page wasn't actually moved? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it required administrator intervention but slipped through the cracks for some time. It's fixed now. No such user (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)