This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ammarpad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have only just picked up the information indicating that someone decided there was no information in the now deleted article on Fr Anthony Ross, the original of which I wrote. the grounds seem to have been that there was no information in thee article. Since when I posted it, there certainly was, I'd welcome an explanation for the allegation. I don't think I invented this subject, but it could be that in entering information for him I was breaking an undisclosed convention, which so far I have been unable to discover.Delahays (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
Diversity winner
Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the tenth newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
General news
Growth team features are now fully deployed in Arabic Wikipedia and Basque Wikipedia (along with Czech, Korean, and Vietnamese Wikipedias). If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together if your wiki is eligible. Then, go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.
We have deployed features that help newcomers find their newcomer homepage. These features were successful, and more than doubled the number of newcomers who find their homepage. In Czech Wikipedia, 72% of newcomers visit their homepage and in Korean Wikipedia, 49% of newcomers visit their homepage.
You can now join the Growth discussion space on the Wikimedia Space. This space has been created during Wikimania, to coordinate initiatives around welcoming newcomers. Please come and say hello!
Growth at Wikimania
Opening panel in the Community Growth space
Several members of the Growth team attended Wikimania in Stockholm. We helped organize a conference track around Community Growth, presented about our team's work, and had many conversations with community members from around the world.
Alignment on newcomer retention: It seems like Wikimania attendees generally believe that newcomer retention is an important problem.
Connecting offline to online: Enthusiasm for ideas that connect our features better to offline events, such as making homepage mentors correspond to offline mentors.
Mentor dashboard: Experienced users requested a dashboard with which they could monitor newcomers who may need help.
Newcomer tasks -- feedback needed!
Mockup of newcomer tasks
The Growth team's main project right now is newcomer tasks, which will suggest easy edits for newcomers. It will be built as a new module for the newcomer homepage.
We hope that this project will help newcomers build their skills before attempting more difficult edits, such as creating new articles or adding images.
These are the three main challenges we've been working on:
Where to find the tasks? After considering many different sources for tasks, we've decided to start by using maintenance templates, which are applied by editors on most wikis, and including tasks like copy editing, adding links, and adding references.
How to match to interests? Research shows that users are more likely to work on articles that are related to their interests. We are currently prototyping methods to ask newcomers their interests and then find articles that match.
How to guide the newcomer? Once a newcomer has selected a recommended article, they will need guidance on how to complete the edit. We have decided to use the help panel to provide that guidance while the newcomer edits.
We are currently engineering on this feature, and we recently published notes from user tests that give mostly positive feedback.
You can explore the design for newcomer tasks in these interactive mockups. We hope to hear from you about your thoughts on the project talk page. Do you think this could be helpful for newcomers? What are we missing?
What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!
Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.
Talk Pages
The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.
The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.
Mobile visual editor
The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.
In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.
Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.
But I couldn't find the edit history of the former page, how do I refer to the former page's edit history? I have to use {{History merge}} to refer to both page edit history. Is the former page's edit history deleted forever? —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲06:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ammarpad,
Just found out that my contribution on the Phnomphenh university has been rejected because selon Wiki's policy, it cannot verify what I contributed. So how about if I send the image taken from a newspaper to prove my information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mth (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mth, It seems you have made the edit in September 2017, that's over two years ago. Welcome back. Yes, image clipping can be used but using citation system is better and makes it more easily locatable/verifiable. See Referencing for beginners. If you have more questions after reading that page you can ask me here or ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @MilborneOne:, The move request was opened almost 10 days before the AfD: Talk:Robert_J._O'Neill#Requested_move_26_October_2019. It was relisted and later dropped to the move request backlog table. I wanted to clear the backlog before it accumulates even more requests. All redirects are working as they should, so there would be no problem accessing the page from either the AfD page or anywhere else. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the eleventh newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
General news
Expanding to more wikis: the team is preparing to deploy Growth features to Ukrainian and Hungarian Wikipedias. Wikis that already have the features are Czech, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Basque Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together if your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.
Mentor training: we tried out our first training for mentors with the Czech community, so that experienced users can build skills that help them retain newcomers.
Mockup of guidance while doing a suggested edit, using the help panel
The help panel was first deployed to newcomers in January 2019, and we have now finished analyzing data to determine its impact. A brief summary is below, and more in-depth information can be found here (in English).
In summary, although we have seen a good amount of usage of the help panel, the help panel has not shown an increase in activation (whether a user makes their first edit) or retention (whether a user returns to edit again).
This is a disappointing result, and our team has discussed potential reasons for the result and ideas for the future. Although we have many ideas for how to improve the help panel, we have decided to keep our attention on the newcomer homepage and newcomer tasks projects for the coming months.
We'll be using the help panel as part of the newcomer tasks project: using it to guide newcomers while they complete suggested edits.
The first version of the newcomer tasks workflow (V1.0) will be deployed in the next weeks on our 4 priority wikis. This version will suggest articles to edit based on maintenance templates. In this first version, we expect many newcomers to initiate the workflow, but not many to select articles to edit or complete edits. We expect future versions of the feature to increase those behaviors.
We're excited about this project because the majority of newcomers visit their newcomer homepage, and this will be the first element of the homepage that clearly asks the newcomer to start editing.
These are the next two versions of the feature, which are already being planned:
V1.1 (topic matching): will allow newcomers to choose topics of interest (such as Art, Music, Sports, or Technology) to personalize their suggestions. After evaluating several approaches, we have decided to use a new ORES model built by the WMF Scoring team. The model will automatically identify the topic area of each article. We expect this to increase how often newcomers select articles to edit.
V1.2 (guidance): once newcomers arrive on an article to edit, we will use the help panel to provide guidance about how to complete the editing task. We expect this to increase how many newcomers actually complete productive edits.
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Done. But drafts are moved all the time at RM/T. That instruction is only for new users, so that they can use WP:AFC for the drafts to be checked properly. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I know, I have drafts moved into main space via RM all the time, but some other editor was raising a fuss. Whatever. Thanks again! ---Another Believer(Talk)05:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mosesheron, I will take a look. But please know that there are thousands of unreviewed articles and all their authors want them reviewed too. So you've to have a little more patience when you create new articles as the backlog is almost unlimited but the workforce is always limited.– Ammarpad (talk)
Names used in an article must match the page title (with exception of few situations, like books with subtitles). The current page title is Jonas Bösiger, so references (to the name) in the article should be that too. If the current title is incorrect you can request for it to be moved through appropriate venues, either WP:RM or WP:RMT. After that, the name used in the article body can be changed. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No, if an article is on incorrect title then the incorrect title should be changed by page move. Changing the name in the body but leaving the incorrect title does not make sense and will one day be reverted by someone no matter how long. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I made some quick search I found usages of both variants in sources, so I can't really decide. Please use a move request process if needed. Also post future requests at WP:RM/TR if necessary as that board is solely created for that. Requests made there also have more visibility there than on my talkpage and can be actioned by a number of people. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to inform you that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that you may be interested in. You, I and others have been involved in a contentious editing conflict at Christianity. I posted at the Noticeboard, not in an attempt to report or sanction any editor, but because I truly wish to understand the best course of action per WP policy, and thus gain experience. It appears that I and other well-intentioned editors have differing interpretations of those policies.
Salam, Ammarpad, being part of OTRS team, I was asking if I can upload a picture that was screenshot from Google map. I was creating an article about a place in kaduna. Yours Anasskoko (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T)12:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ammarpad, sorry about my ambiguous phrasing in explaining my reasoning for removing the image from the reading sidebar. You are of course correct that the sidebar is not shown on mobile. I had tried but failed to communicate that the image itself was/is being shown prominently on mobile on pages that have no other image to display. My thinking was that this created a MOS:LEADIMAGE issue, so thought it best to err on the side of no image at all. Do you see what I mean? Smilingpolitely (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. But I still don't understand what you're trying to do. Template {{Reading}} is not shown on mobile versions at all, and that includes the image in it. So how does MOS:LEADIMAGE issue arise on a non-existing image? (It's nonexisting as per as mobile site is concerned because; 1. It's not directly in any page, but transcluded via template. 2. The template is not shown on all Wikipedia mobile versions). I am currently replying this with mobile, if you can reply with any concrete example of visible problems/MOS:LEADIMAGE issues caused by the image on mobile sites, I can be able to check that. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Again I have explained myself poorly! Sorry to try your patience. There are two instances I think that MOS:LEADIMAGE issues might be arising: 1. The “shown prominently” issue I came across was not “on mobile” but actually in the iOS app, where the sidebar image is being used a header, despite the sidebar being - as you point out - non-existent. A representative screenshot attached. 2. The sidebar image is also appearing on mobile Safari (although less prominently) at the base of pages in the Related Articles section. See second screenshot. Do you see either of these as MOS:LEADIMAGE issues? Smilingpolitely (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I created this redirect because I saw a redlink on a highly viewed daily news portal, and I decided to turn it blue, but it seems, from your statement like you were not happy with that. Now I wonder, why did you put the phrase in a [[ ]] link markup if you didn't want it to be created? Your statement in the linked discussion is also not true. It was not the CNN article that led me to create the article, and I was not aware of the time you created the redlink; I actually never read that article up till now. However, I did read both medical malpractice and quackery before deciding where the redirect best fits and I still believe quackery is that more appropriate target. But more importantly, I don't care whether it redirect to any of them or get deleted. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: [1], thanks for pointing that out. So I looked at the discussion and it seems "Top Shop" at that time was a DAB page. Hence, why the video game's article was moved into it. My move request is a bit different since it's more along WP:RECOGNIZABILITY:
Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation.
"Top Shop" referring to the store is significantly more notable than the niche video game where the video game has a name longer than simply "Top Shop" anyways. Hence, it should be moved to "Board Game Top Shop". DA1 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. But the explanation you're giving me now, is the kind of explanation needed at Requested move discussion where more people will judge its merit, so it'd be better to start such discussion. WP:RM/TR is meant for clear-cut situations that don't need any further explanation and/or lengthy policy quoting. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Requests for uncreated articles
Greetings & a great weekend to you all. I believe it would be great if the (Requests for uncreated articles) section in our wiki project can be attended to & at least one article be created this weekend as some requests have been pending since 2016. I believe this would be pivotal to the encyclopedia as a whole & a means to get editors who have gone inactive to revive their Wikipedia activities. Sent by Celestina007. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the twelfth newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
General news
A training for mentors has been published. The training was first tried with the Czech community, and went well.
Growth team features have been deployed to Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Armenian Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together whether your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.
Productive edits from newcomer tasks
We deployed the basic workflow for newcomer tasks to our target wikis on November 20, and the early results are exciting.
Suggested edits by type of edit. Graph captions (top to bottom): ■ Copyedits ■ Add links ■ Expand article ■ Add reference ■ Advanced edits
About 1.5% of newcomers who visit their homepage complete the workflow and save a suggested edit. So far, this has amounted to over 450 edits, on all wikis, coming from both desktop and mobile users.
When we look at the edits that newcomers make, we see that they are largely positive! We are pleased to see that this feature does not appear to encourage vandals.
75% of the edits are productive and unreverted.
95% of the edits appear to be in good faith.
Most of the edits include copyedits and adding links, with some newcomers also adding content and references. Copyedits are suggested most strongly.
Click here to learn more specifics about the results so far.
Topic matching deployed
The results from our user tests showed us that newcomers are likely to do more suggested edits if they can choose articles related to a topic that they're interested in, such as "science", "music", or "sports".
On January 21, we deployed topic matching on our pilot wikis. Newcomers are now using it. We expect it to cause more newcomers to try suggested edits, and to keep making more of them.
In the coming weeks, we will be making improvements to the accuracy of the algorithm used to topic matching, which is part of the ORES project.
Next steps for newcomer tasks
Prototype of how the help panel will "peek" from the bottom of the page to offer guidance on mobile.
Because we are seeing positive results from newcomer tasks, the Growth team plans to concentrate our efforts on improving the workflow and encouraging more newcomers to use it.
Guidance: next, we will be using the help panel to provide guidance to newcomers as they do suggested edits, and to prompt them to do another edit after completing their first one. In user tests for this feature, demo videos were one of the favorite features, and we will think about how these might be added.
Starting the workflow: only about 20% of newcomer who visit their homepage begin the newcomer tasks workflow. We are going to be trying out different layouts of the homepage to encourage more newcomers to try newcomer tasks.
Additional task types: we are researching methods to recommend more specific tasks to newcomers, such as specific links to add, or images that could be added to articles from Commons.
Hi Ammarpad! Just a quick, friendly suggestion here. "Please add some sources." doesn't usually result in useful addition of sources, it usually just leads to piling on of sources that don't really match the content. I would suggest guiding folks to summarize from sources, instead. Sorry to bother you! Waggie (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
What's that referring to? You should add links when you comment on articles. I don't think I reviewed any AfC article in the past few months. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the quick response. I'm sorry for being so terse in my message, I have a few things going on right now and was just trying to get the thought out while it was fresh. I was looking at Draft:Anak Agung Gde Agung and saw your comment there. Though, I've noticed this on others drafts you've reviewed also. Not trying to be a jerk, just wanted to help you for future reviewing. I'm sorry if it comes across poorly! Waggie (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem, but I did not only said "Please add some sources." as you implied. In fact what I said is more appropriate to the context than what you're suggesting, because the comment contains a link to a detailed explanation of referencing for a Wikipedia beginner. You should reread the draft and understand the context. "summarize from sources" may be appropriate when the content was copied from a source verbatim but not when we want communicate to a user that more sources are indeed needed; that was the case here. The content was OK, but more sources were needed. Maybe there's a better way to say the same thing, but your suggestion is not one of them as it does not fit the context and intent of what I wanted communicate. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ammarpad. Firstly, I was not attempting to imply that you said less than you did, my apologies. The point I'm making is that content needs to be summarized from those sources. The content clearly wasn't OK, as it's a BLP and was entirely unsourced. I was concerned because there didn't seem to be any clear connection in your statement between the need for sources and the content itself (many non-native English speakers don't understand that a "source" is meant to support content). I work with a lot of helpees over on IRC who don't understand that connection and I need to explain that Wikipedia articles (especially BLPs) should be summarized from the reliable sources, not entirely original written prose or content they were provided by their client. Thanks for your time! Waggie (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The reference that the modern spelling is Boro is Table 1 (page 101) (Jaquesson, François (2017). Translated by van Breugel, Seino. "The linguistic reconstruction of the past: The case of the Boro-Garo languages". Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 40 (1): 90–122. doi:10.1075/ltba.40.1.04van).
The Boro spelling also removes an ambiguity that Bodo creates. Bodo is often used for the umbrella group as well as the Boro, the subgroup, to which it belongs. Boro has the desired precision under WP:CRITERION.
There are also sources supporting the long standing name, from where you moved it apparently without discussion and after it has been on that name for over a decade. As I have said here in my comment, there are still tightly-associated pages using "Bodo" for instance Bodo culture, Bodo Sahitya Sabha and Bodoland among others. It would not make sense to say the people are "Boro" but call their culture page as "Bodo culture". In addition, a name being "often used for" something does not preclude its usage in another sense, I believe. So, to weigh the sources as well as all these facts and determine best way forward that would require (preferably multi RM) WP:RM discussion, to discuss all the pages and settle on "Boro" or "Bodo" once and for all, that's why I recommended it instead of unilateral page moves. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The move was made under WP:BOLD. In the tightly associated pages, I don't think Wikipedia policies will allow us to change the name of proper nouns of organizations (e.g. Bodo Sahitya Sabha) or administrative units (Bodoland Territorial Region), but Boro culture should conform to Wikipedia policies of precision. As you have suggested, I shall start the WP:RM process in the language and culture pages soon. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance with the SNOC page
Thanks for your assistance with the Sharjah National Oil Corporation page appreciate your support and help with editing. --Stivushka (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I thought an article should be at the "base name" when it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. An all-caps title is treated as separate from title case, right? I could very well be wrong. Looking at Dink, the only other thing listed for all-caps "DINK" is a not-broadly-popular song that doesn't have its own article. Anyway thanks for taking the time to look at my request, and have a good day! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:RMT is for clear-cut cases. DINK does not redirect to DINK (acronym), so you cannot easily request for their swapping at that venue. Your attempt to change the redirect was reverted, that itself should hint to you why a proper move request is needed. Your argument may be well right, but I am not the one to judge and also not here on my talkpage. You should should start a move request, that's the right place for it. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, I thought it was uncontroversial because there's no other major topic for "DINK", as opposed to "Dink", based on my reading of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. No big deal, just thought I was doing the right thing and avoiding adding to the RM pile. That revert was done by the user who moved my request to RM. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
May I suggest in future that you close the move conversation before moving the actual article, the way you went about that seemed disruptive at first to me, Govvy (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
"Disruptive"?? really?. The last time I checked there's no policy requirement for that, so thanks for your suggestion but I won't be using it. Once the discussion is closed the link to direct move that prefills the reason and formatted link will disappear, and it was there to be used not just be seen. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
? I have no idea what you said, all I can say is, it looked like you decided to move an article while the discussion was still open and not closed. Looked disruptive at first, that's all I can say, feels like you are operating back to front. Govvy (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That's how all move discussions are closed. If you suspect someone is moving pages disruptively, then you should look at their profile and contributions and first confirm whether they are what you're suspecting or not before throwing disruption accusations. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If you think that, that's fine, but you're the only person I've seen to do it that way round! heh. Govvy (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not the only one. It is because you have not checked others to compare before commenting or you have checked very few that are doing it that way and then hastily concluded not doing it that way is "disruptive" as you said above. All the active people who move pages that I know, do it the same way as I do. There are thousands of examples but here are some few: Wbm1058: [2][3], [4]. CAPTAIN MEDUSA: [5], [6] TonyBallioni: [7][8]. Steel1943: [9][10]. Look at each diff and see what comes first, and what next. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
