User talk:Buffs/Archive 13

United States Military Academy featured article review

I have nominated United States Military Academy 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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Retired?

Sorry to disturb you Buffs, but I checked your revision history and you don’t appear to be semi-retired. Are you just exasperated by this Wikipedia system and just want a bit of a break instead? I personally think it’s a shame to have the FA promoter of my college go. I just hope that if you decide to stay, the WikiDrama will stay clear of you and allow you to actually help fulfill the purpose of this encyclopedia. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity:, I still consider myself semi-retired (which isn't defined anywhere in WP). I was blocked for a month without warning because I disagreed with a purely leftist take on a conservative article. And quite frankly, I'm disgusted by it. All of WP has a decidedly leftist tilt and efforts are being made to entrench that position (such as prioritizing "scholarly" articles over professional publications and mainstream media over any alternatives...they ignore that these are becoming more and more just leftist echo chambers). My goal is to minimize my interactions on WP and I intend to take A&M back to featured article and limit myself to maintaining it, associated articles, and a few more subjects, but that's it...and is what I mean about semi-retired. I can't control all of WP, but I can focus my limited time/efforts toward making articles better that really matter to me and that I'm a complete expert on. With that in mind, your review of Texas A&M on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Texas_A&M_University/archive2 would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the United States citations

Thanks for adding those citations on Flag of the United States. It might seem trivial, but there are some big claims being made and I think it is a much stronger article now that there are citations. Nauseous Man (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. When there are protests against the US, it's the US flag that is burned, not the eagle or liberty bell, but whatever. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

photo query

Hello, I'm not sure this is the right place to post this but this is a copyrighted and fairly recent photo from Vogue(it is not the magazine cover) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_Styles_in_blue_Gucci_dress_and_black_blazer_in_American_Vogue.jpeg but the dress is in a Museum and there's free photos of it online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/clarew/51949351993/in/album-72177720297186521/ so I don't think it falls under the fair use criteria. Lily32241 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lily32241: If there is significant sourced commentary about the photo, inclusion would make sense and NFCC could be satisfied. This would require something about the publication or lighting or... If there is only significant commentary about the dress, then NFCC cannot be satisfied as free alternatives exist. Buffs (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There was controversy about Harry Styles wearing the dress but nothing about the photo in particular. Lily32241 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is sourced commentary about "controversy about Harry Styles wearing the dress", then an argument could be made for NFCC as the controversy was about wearing the garment (if wearing it was the controversy, an image about wearing it might be appropriate). I would start and RfC and just see where it goes. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The dress was displayed in the museum because it had been worn by him on the Vogue cover. This made the news as well so it's tied to the cover. Lily32241 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If y'all can't come to a consensus, do an RfC. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

other reply

The photo that was responded to was a very specific photo by cultural critics. While it is displayed in the V&A as an exhibition, the exhibition is in a certain context about conversations around masculinity, and the photo is seen as significant. The Harry Styles in a dress photo that is used in cultural commentator articles is not the photo that is on the cover, it is specifically the photograph in the magazine which was seen as particularly provocative.

Given Lily32241's nearly three-year contribution history, which mainly consists of small edits that are complaining about and reverting edits of people noting that he's written sexually ambiguous music, diminishing that he doesn't label his sexuality, and even erasing the comics character Starfox's pansexuality from his Wikipedia article (despite it not having anything to do with Styles' own sexuality) there is reason to believe that they are a WP single issue editor who is simply uncomfortable with Styles' ambiguity and complex relationship with the LGBTQ community and that their petition of this photo's removal is part of that, not actually good faith edits to the page trying to improve it. H-influenzae (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Prior to this complaint, Lily32241 not only demonstrated lack of understanding of photo use in the first place by putting one of their own watermarked photographs on the page as the main photo of Styles' face, but they provided no edits to the fashion section in the past three years despite how out of date it was, suggesting that they are not actually interested in the cultural significance of this photograph but are uncomfortable with the conversation surrounding it. H-influenzae (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@H-influenzae: The question/comment was posed to me, so please give me a chance to reply. Given that you've never posted on my talk page before, it strikes me as being rather WP:HOUNDish. Please refrain from further replies to Lily32241 unless directly addressed. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I've noticed this person being a bit WP:HOUND to me in the past and should not have replicated the behavior. H-influenzae (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Now you're making further (unevidenced) accusations of impropriety. Please stop. This is not the place for it. If you have a grievance, take it to an appropriate forum like WP:AN and present your evidence there. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not wish to have grievance or arbitration with anyone honestly. Hope you have a good rest of your day, thank you for clarifying on the photograph. H-influenzae (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nevada logo.gif

The file File:Nevada logo.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bad GIF. Superseded by File:University-of-nevada-blockn-blue.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hardly a "bad GIF"...just something superceded. Delete it. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hey Buffs, I've seen your edits during the time when you were still active on Wikipedia and agree with much of your criticisms regarding Wikipedia having a liberal bias. Do you think you would ever be interested in editing an article non-politically related/engaging in editing an article with someone as a personal project? GuardianH (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

possibly. What did you have in mind? Buffs (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. I had in mind articles like Deep Springs College, which I am trying to alleviate to a Good article. I know these pages might sound a little out-of-the-blue, but I've been looking for an experienced editor to work with and anything concerning politics on Wikipedia can sometimes be a double-edged sword—sometimes just editing something non-political can be refreshing. GuardianH (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Saw your edit on Deep Springs! Thanks haha. I know it's random but I've gotten an itch to edit articles that I find interesting (I stumbled across Deep Springs in a 60 Minutes Episode, I'm not enrolled or anything, I just find it interesting!) GuardianH (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH: I think it's missing a LOT of information about the school. For a school that old and with as many distinguished former students, I'm surprised there isn't more. Look at Texas A&M for a comprehensive example. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Deep Springs College is a little bit different in respect to traditional universities such as Texas A&M. For one, it is a school that is extremely small and primarily student-maintained, so big universities like have a rich history to draw from, whereas Deep Springs is a little more niche. There is certainly more things to add, but I think a comparison to Texas A&M might be too different. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Good correction. A&M is definitely not UT or Tulane University or University of Tulsa or t.u./that overglorified junior college in Austin.

But there should still be MUCH more history and basic school info available: general tuition, acceptance rates, demographics, rankings, endowment, etc. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree (sorry about the UT-mistake, a freudian slip on my part). Those still have to be added, but in terms of history it simply does not have the same reservoir to draw from as a big university such as Texas A&M. However, there is a book out regarding the history of DS, I am trying to get a copy but none seem to be available online. Material aside, what do you think of the article so far? GuardianH (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Overall, seems like a solid start. I don't think it's comprehensive enough, but beyond that, it seems well written overall. Buffs (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

AN

I think your comment is a bit rude. I made a straightforward request at the top and just a couple of responses to other comments in the long life of this thread. Why go out of your way in your infrequent editing and semi-retirement to make an impolite comment? Or do you have a personal issue with me from your former editing life? At any rate, please try to do better. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nearly 3 weeks of this drama. My opinion is as valid as yours for inclusion and I stand by it. This never should have been brought to AN in the first place. The fact that you continue to misstate facts and mischaracterize virtually all evidence to the contrary is part of the problem on WP. Buffs (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I made my substantive remarks at the article talk page and made a routine, neutral, request for close review. You on the other hand have made repetitive substantive remarks at AN that you should have articulated at the article talk page if you cared. But my visit here was just to tell you to cut out the personal attack stuff at AN, which by the way is a really dumb place to do that kind of thing. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. I assessed your logic and continued arguing. Accusing me of personal attacks without evidence is, in itself, a personal attack. I've been as patient as needed. We're done here. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Undid closure

I undid your involved editor closure. Andre🚐 15:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I saw this and would like to know why? Do you think it was the wrong result or incorrectly summarized the discussion or what? Levivich (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Editor was involved. The entire point of a close review is to have an uninvolved person close. If you're going to participate in the review you cannot also close it, that is defeating the purpose of having the close review. Andre🚐 15:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it? Where does it say anything about requiring an uninvolved person to close in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, or anywhere else? WP:RFCCLOSE #5 says the opposite. Unless you have a substantive objection to the close itself, I don't believe there is any grounds to object because the closer is "involved" (just like it's not grounds to object that the closer is a non-admin). We want involved editors to close discussions, so as not to take up the time of uninvolved volunteers, whenever the outcome is clear, which, in this case, I think it is. Ask yourself: do you reasonably expect that any other person would close this with a different result? If not, I'd suggest that reverting the close does not help us in any way, and rather just wastes editor time. FWIW, for the same exact reason (the outcome is clear), there is no point in "closing" the discussion at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that there is 0% chance the close review resulted in consensus to overturn. That being the case, there's no point in doing anything further, we can just let the thread auto-archive. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. If consensus were obvious, a formal closure is not required. If someone is going to close it must be someone uninvolved, because the entire point of the review is to avoid any appearance of impropriety and make the close stick: this has the opposite effect. If someone can close citing IAR, I can revert that. Andre🚐 16:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course you can, the question is should you. You don't have to answer my question about what it is you think an uninvolved closer would do differently, but I hope you think about whether it's worth asking another volunteer to spend time reading that discussion and writing a summary of it, or whether that volunteer's time would be better spent elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I am also involved in the discussion, so my opinion on the merits is not relevant, but I will remind you that consensus is not about tallying votes. But the point stands that if the point of the close review is to make the close stick and have legitimacy, assuming good faith that the close will stick, this close of the close review probably makes things worse toward that goal. Andre🚐 16:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The point of a close review is not to make the close stick and have legitimacy, whatever that even means. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE doesn't talk about closes sticking or having legitimacy. The point of a close review is to determine whether or not a close should be overturned. That has been accomplished already; it was accomplished weeks ago. It doesn't matter at all whether or not someone puts {{atop}} and {{abot}} around that discussion. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If the close should be overturned, it would be. If the close has a cloud of murkiness around it because of folks grousing about it being illegitimate, closing the close review that reinforces the close will make that close more legitimate and silence the dissenters. Doing it this way, by shoving through a close by a participant with a clear opinion who participates in the discussion, only extends and worsens the reason why the close review was started to begin with. I agree that the discussion does not need to be closed, but I'm not so sure that everyone will agree with your read, nor does it matter. What matters is that if the close review is going to be closed, thereby closing the book on the subject, it should be done by someone uninvolved and not someone who clearly has a view. Andre🚐 16:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't object and I won't. Levivich, I appreciate your defense, but it truly isn't necessary. It was an attempt to be bold/WP:IAR and someone undoing it is part of the process if they feel it was wrong. I take no offense. Buffs (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Andre🚐 20:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hope all is well.

Hope all is well.

I just posted an appeal to my topic ban at the administrators noticeboard. You were supportive in my last appeal, and I would appreciate if you could share your rationale for having done so to the discussion of my current appeal (the last saw no consensus in its closure). Perhaps even review my latest appeal and consider sharing whether or not you would again support lifting my topic ban.

Best wishes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblock?

Hey. I noticed your final comment at ANI after the thread was closed. I'm willing to lift the block on the conditions you outline there, "I will pledge not place more than one reply per subheading in any WP:AN forum through the end of the year", etc. I would make an exception for any thread somebody else opened about you yourself. Please confirm your pledge below. (I'll unblock when I see it, but I won't be online the next few hours.) Bishonen | tålk 05:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I will accept those conditions, but it seems more than a little pointless to agree a second time. Why not simply unblock and say "unblocked in accordance with his pledge". Might I also request that you be more direct/clear with other users in the future? Buffs (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your charm bowls me over as usual. Unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 23:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. Was the snarky comment really necessary? Buffs (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I regretted it as soon as I'd hit 'publish'. Bishonen | tålk 23:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC).

Feel free to delete/strike as you see fit. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Of note, the comment was never struck/deleted

File:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.png

A tag has been placed on File:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Has my support! Buffs (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Would have been better to wait for the FFD closure IMHO. Two closures happening simultaneously can lead to issues. Buffs (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Texas A&M University

Hi again; just to let you know, I replaced a reference in "Notable alumni and faculty" --> "Alumni" [1]. The sentence was cited to a forum post, which are not normally reliable sources; I replaced it with a ref from Mary and Sophie Hutson cited to Houston Chronicle. Otherwise, no worries. Good luck with your planned FA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Buffs (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes for myself

• replace Alumni -> Aggies in at least some cases
• replace Texas A&M -> A&M in at least some cases
• replace university -> school in at least some cases
• update references and numbers
• add "right" to images

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Buffs,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI

You may be interested in reading User:Piotrus/Response+[2]. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies... Buffs (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Answer

Sorry but to answer your question you will "have to bite the bullet." Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

understood; thanks Buffs (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TAMU Help

Howdy Buffs, I noticed that you are quite an experienced editor and frequently make edits to the Texas A&M University page. I recently moved the campus section to be below the history section and then created a list of all the colleges. Now, when I look at the page from my phone, the sections are very messed up. I was wondering if you have the knowledge that could possibly fix my egregious mistake. Aquabluetesla (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

sure, undoing for now. Will tweak over the next hour to encompass your changes. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aquabluetesla: I've implemented some of the changes you made. Those I did not include were additional wikilinks to the College of Engineering and the College of Law (both are already previously wikilinked in the prose; see WP:OVERLINK for more of the rationale). I also did not include your chart for the colleges as such information is already included in the prose. This information was previously listed in a chart in the article, but based on feedback during the FA process, it was removed as redundant. If people want to know more about each of the colleges, they can click the associated wikilinks and read more about them. If you disagree, I'd be pleased to discuss it further either here or on the talk page. Have a wonderful day! ...and thank you for your interest! Buffs (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing me of the guidelines on that. I did not know. I checked and found that nine of the current sixteen (it lists seventeen but I could only find sixteen) schools are not mentioned anywhere on the main article. I remade list on the talk page though and hope that this figure can be decreased or a list can be added. My original list was very primitive, (I copied the style from UT) but I think it could be improved with pictures or it could be combined with the endowment section (like SMU) in academics so the article can have a list like similar institutions do. Maybe we can discuss this on the talk page. Aquabluetesla (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Here or there is perfectly acceptable, but Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice applies as well in an effort to standardize Colleges and Universities. That's why the pages correlate and there is a limited amount of variation between them when it comes to format.

There were 17 colleges when those paragraphs were written. Most are prefaced with "As of 2021..." to help avoid the problems that are created with such changes. It needs some minor updates.

Also, "I copied the style from UT"...I don't see that on the University of Tennessee's page, but maybe I'm missing something. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This was a chart that used to be on the page as of a little over a year ago:

TAMU college/school/center founding
College/school/center	Year founded
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences	1911
College of Architecture	1905
Bush School of Government and Public Service	1997
Mays Business School	1961
College of Education and Human Development	1969
College of Engineering	1880
College of Geosciences	1949
Health Science Center	2013
School of Law	2013
College of Liberal Arts	1924
College of Science	1966
College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences	1916

Buffs (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh haha, I should've said TU. Thanks for linking that guideline as well. That's a pretty cool chart. I wish it was still on the article. It would be perfect if there were just a few revisions to update it with the current college/school structure. I would argue the Health Science Center doesn't fit with the theme though. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OH! You meant Tulane University (or is it Tulsa University)...or did you mean t.u.?... ;-)

Obviously an update would be to remove the College of Science as it's been absorbed. For the HSC, it's the name. Just because it doesn't have "College" in the title doesn't mean it isn't such an institution and isn't directly connected to the University...the institution's naming convention isn't a factor in the composition in such a list. Buffs (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for the comment you just placed on the admin noticeboard about me. I’ve tried to hold back from replying to each message, as it come across as bludgeon-y to keep defending myself. So your comment is appreciated. :) TheSpacebook (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. We need to all take each instance with a grain of salt. Too many people are quick to drop the ban hammer when better counsel is an appropriate venue. I've been blocked twice via rules that were later changed due to my blocking ("Oh that's not right, we need to change the rules") and another time due to people stalking me and claiming I was stalking them (see above)! Don't confuse my support of the appropriate processes with support for your actions or point of view (this goes for everyone, not you personally). Buffs (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

:) TheSpacebook (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello @Buffs. I request your participation at Chairperson#Requested move 16 June 2024. PadFoot2008 04:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Move Review

Hello @Buffs. Regarding the requested move where you had recently participated at my request, the page has unfortunately been moved to Chair (officer) despite greater support for "Chairman" (9) than "Chair (officer)" (8). Hence, I request your participation and !vote at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#Chair (officer). PadFoot (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Determination of consensus

Regarding this comment: my question is solely regarding wording, and so does not affect the actual determination of consensus. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say Consensus appears to be either neutral to unanimous in all instances. You determined the consensus for two questions; I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that the consensus was neutral for either of them. Perhaps you meant the expressed viewpoints were neutral or in agreement with your determined consensus result? (Though there was one dissent for question 2.) isaacl (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

When we are talking about consensus about a consensus, the wording is almost always going to involve some ambiguity. In this instance, the consensus was a unanimous yes for #1 and almost unnanimous for #2 with some neutral opinions and one dissent. As a whole, that's 100% unanimous on one and + if you offset the 1 dissent with the otherwise unanimous results on 2, it's pretty clearly a clear consensus. You are correct however that it wasn't completely unanimous; there was a singular clear voice of dissent. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes; that's why saying that "consensus appears to be either neutral..." doesn't seem accurate, because consensus was, as you say, unanimous or almost unanimous. Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the expressed viewpoints. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)