Jump to content

User talk:Ceyockey/Criticism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thalidomide

[edit]

You added there a little bit about SALL4. It seems, that your "Note" in the reference ist obsolete now? --Mueck (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article moves

[edit]

You don't move an article then start a discussion. And you sure as hell don't give it a horrible title that makes not one lick of sense grammatically. Please familiarize yourself better with move procedures before making such decisions. oknazevad (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oknazevad: editing in anger and with a petty attitude is no way to work here. Next time, calm down before you do any editing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oknazevad: That was a really poor way of phrasing things. Ah, well - we're human. I don't disagree with the revisions you've done, and I appreciate the change. My titles were grammatically correct based on an assumption that there was a distinction between Women's and Men's WWE, but I think your titles are based on a better understanding of the WWE franchises. Thanks for the changes which make things better. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I did fly off the handle a bit. The two things that bothered me the most were that you were moving a page to a title that wasn't discussed when there was a specific and better title discussed as part of the move request. There was also the erroneous opening of a move discussion after the page was already moved. I'm sorry I lost my temper. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RM relists

[edit]

FYI, re: this edit, when you place your relist after opinions in a requested move, or anywhere else except where the instructions advise us to place the relist, the bot does not recognize that the discussion has been relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Hart close

[edit]

Can you double-check your close at Talk:Keith_Hart_(wrestler)#Requested_move_6_August_2019 please? If you don't agree you got it wrong, would you mind reverting to let someone else take a look, please? Or at least explain there how you read "no consensus" out of that discussion? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

intechopen.com

[edit]

What do you mean by /www.intechopen.com being a predatory site? Pierre cb (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What you explain is not very clear but the link to predatory publisher is. So I understand and found more reliable peer reviewed article for my references. Pierre cb (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a few remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory publisher

[edit]

Ceyockey, you edited out a citation on the Epstein–Barr virus-associated lymphoproliferative diseases page because it was by a "predatory publisher" viz., [1]. Since I wish to use this reference in another page and will correct this reference on the Epstein-Barr...page, would you please let me know what is wrong with this reference? Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was the IntechOpen link to the wrong citation (with the same article title). Really what should have been done is simply to remove that link, since doi:10.1016/j.pathol.2017.09.006 is the correct citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Li S, Young KH, Medeiros LJ (January 2018). "Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma". Pathology. 50 (1): 74–87. doi:10.1016/j.pathol.2017.09.006. PMID 29167021.

Unilever

[edit]

Hi - Thanks for the additional figures that you have added to the Unilver infobox. I note that your source is the annual reports of the company which you have identified as a "self-published source". While updating the financial data of some other UK companies I noticed that some editors have been using some pretty diverse secondary sources for financial data including (i) (via wikidata) the Justice Department of the Czech Republic in the case of Avast; in this case the figures were in Czech koruna when the company publishes its annual report in US$, and (ii) a source known as "Macrotrends" in the case of British American Tobacco: in the latter case the revenue figures seemed to be much larger than the figures in the audited accounts (possibly but not necessarily because of a different treatment of tobacco taxes). My own view is that it is best to use primary sources for financial data but would welcome views. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A K Peters

[edit]

I have put the article up at WP:RM#C, in line with some comments in the recent deletion discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Born vs b.

[edit]

Hi there, I saw you changed some (born to (b. in dab article lists. Please don't, as it barely saves any space and just introduces more confusion. Here is a brief discussion on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Should_life_dates_use_%22b.%22? The-Pope (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Daniel Edwards (name)

[edit]

Hi Ceyockey, you recently moved the page Daniel Edwards (disambiguation) to Daniel Edwards (name), arguing that the page only contains personal names. While that is true, that doesn't mean at all that it should be called "X (name)". It's still a disambiguation page. There are hundreds of disambiguation pages about names just like this one, that is "X (disambiguation)" as "X" is already taken by a primary topic, and obviously they all contain only personal names, but they're still called "X (disambiguation)". Page titles like "X (name)" are instead used for just first names or surnames; sometimes they contain information about the name (etymology etc) and sometimes they contain nothing more than a list of people with that name, but they're not disambiguation pages. Daniel Edwards (name), however, is one, and should be moved back to Daniel Edwards (disambiguation). Lennart97 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Move review of Allan Boyd

[edit]

I'm afraid I don't agree with your close at Talk:John Boyd (footballer, born 1929). The single opposer had no relevant argument and it's clearly shown that the common name, and the name the player used, is 'Allan Boyd'. DrKay (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except two of the sources say 'Alan'. The 'no consensus' close was therefore correct. GiantSnowman 16:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop following me around please. Stop responding to every single comment I make on every football-related page. I've asked you at least 4 times now to stop harassing me. Both sources that say 'Alan Boyd' also say he was born in 1926, but you rejected them for that. Only one source calls him 'John Boyd'[1]; three call him 'Allan Boyd'[2][3][4]. All the others call him 'John Allan Boyd'. DrKay (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know damn well you only opposed at Allan Boyd as part of your petty feud and campaign of harassment. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am harassing you then please raise it at ANI. FWIW your revert at your talk page was the first time I have seen you accusing me of harassment. The Boyd article has been on my watchlist because I created the article in 2009... GiantSnowman 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[5][6][7][8][9][10]. Leave me alone, please. Don't reply here or anywhere else. I'm not seeking an explanation, justification, apology or counter-argument. Just leave me alone. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. If you were to AGF you would note that I did not comment on the Óscar Fernández González page after you accused me of harassing you - because that talk page was not on my watchlist and I did not see your comment. For the avoidance of doubt I am not following you around and I am not harassing you - if you bothered to check you will see that I comment on ever move request posted at WP:FOOTBALL. Please AGF. GiantSnowman 19:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaslight. DrKay (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who's the one making ad hominem now, eh? GiantSnowman 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaslight. DrKay (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for John Boyd (footballer, born 1929)

[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of John Boyd (footballer, born 1929). 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. DrKay (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People with ambiguous names

[edit]

Hi there. I see that you have moved some lists of people with the same name, like Anthony Edwards (disambiguation) to Anthony Edwards (name). I moved that one back to its "(disambiguation)" title. Per MOS:DABNAME, name lists only apply when they share just part of the same name, like a given name or a surname. I dont believe it generally applies to people whose entire name matches, like Anthony Edwards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review of Victor Medina

[edit]

I don't agree with your close at Talk:Víctor Medina (footballer, born 1964) and invite you to reconsider. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking your concerns to Wikipedia:Move review so that you can get an independent review; I've looked at the item again and do not think I would overturn at this point. Another of my moves was taken there recently, but has been endorsed rather than overturned. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Víctor Medina (footballer, born 1964)

[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Víctor Medina (footballer, born 1964). 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. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zev Wolf

[edit]

Zev Wolf of Zhitomir and Zev Wolf of Zbaraz were not the same person. They have separate pages on the Hebrew Wikipedia (see Zev Wolf of Zhitomyr). And the former was not the son of Yechiel Michel. This matter needs immediate attention as major confusion has resulted from your merging them into one person. The page must be restored as the way it was before your edits, and a new page must be created for Zev Wolf of Zhitomyr. Sincerely, -- -- -- 21:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- -- -- 02:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-close request

[edit]

I'd like to request a clearer re-close (or a re-listing) of Talk:Steve Gibson (computer programmer)#Requested move 9 March 2021, which you closed simply as "no consensus". There actually is clearly a consensus to move; zero respondents were in favor of the current title. We just did not yet arrive at a spectacularly obvious consensus what to move it to. So, it could at bare minimum be closed with a consensus to move but a necessity for a new discussion to determine the proper title. A bit more practically, it could be un-closed and relisted again for more input

However, I really think you could get away with closing it already as in favor of Steve Gibson (software engineer), since two affirmatively support that, no one opposed it, and a third (me) considers it acceptable. A fourth (Roman Spinner) didn't have a specific choice but recommended looking in Category:Software engineers for potential disambiguators, so he's also clearly on board with the subject being categorized as one (and "(software engineer)" itself will obviously be among the disambiguators found in that category). So, really, the only kinda-contrary voice in the entire discussion is the anon's unsupported claim that this subject is actually the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be disambiguated at all, which has no impact on any "use this disambiguator versus that one" weighting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I am thinking of renominating for a move myself based on the discussion. Give me a short time and I'll do so. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wright

[edit]

Hi Ceyockey, could you tell me the purpose of the section tags that you added to Aaron Wright? I've never seen these added to a DAB page before. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • nobody wants to try anything new here @Leschnei:. It was meant to support automation of inclusion of names in surname lists -- but everything I did at Wright has been undone .. so they are useless. Like I said - nobody really wants things to get easier here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Fed Cup page moves

[edit]
seems to have come to an end

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I couldn't find any requested move discussion concerning the page, let alone including the related pages you recently moved. The main article seems to have been unilaterally moved (without opposition) in 2020. But that's not necessarily reason to rename all the related articles. I'm not invested in the topic, so I don't know specifics, but apart from the incorrect edit summary, if there are country teams that stopped participating before the the cup was renamed, moving such pages wouldn't seem appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found the unopposed discussion at Talk:France Billie Jean King Cup team#Requested move 17 April 2021. That RM did not actually list the other pages, though, so it's not quite procedurally sound as watchers of the other pages wouldn't have been notified. I guess the moves are in most cases uncontroversial though, so probably no harm done. Including a link in the edit summary would have been helpful though. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012: It did mention all the content of the category, as this says in the move request: "Apply this request result for the other nations in Category:Billie Jean King Cup teams." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all affected pages are listed using the RM template, the bot will post a notification on each of those pages, letting their watchers would know of the discussion. This was not the case here, and the moves may have come a surprise to some. I'll mention this to the nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and agree it's a risk. Thanks for reaching out to the nominator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Icon RM

[edit]
closing discussion as the move has been reviewed and not further commentary is likely here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

i! I was surprised by the close at Talk:Icon#Requested move 19 April 2021. Yes, editors were split on the issue of long-term significance, but many of the opposing arguments were based on notions (like etymological primacy or importance to a given editor's chosen field) that are explicitly ruled out by the guidelines. But even if we ignore that and assume that significance is entirely subjective and every !vote counts equally, we're still left with a unusual situation – a primary topic remains while everybody agrees that one of the two criteria (usage) is not met, and a slight majority (9 out of 16) believe the other (long-term significance) isn't either. – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While editors opposing relied on long-term significance (which seems valid though weak, is the religious meaning really more important than cultural icons? I don't think so) the supporters argued that it wasn't primary by either criteria, IMO there was a rough consensus to move though perhaps a relist but otherwise I think there was a consensus to move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala and Crouch, Swale: I went back and reviewed the commentary and came down to agreeing with my gut reaction. The people are about 50/50 split between No Primary Topic and religious icon being primary. A notable third option, of Cultural icon beig the primary topic was made. There is also a philosophical schism between current term usage vs. historical usage being more important for Wikipedia in terms of primary topic selection. There is no consensus given this variety of valid discussion points. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But editors pointed out that the cultural term was perhaps if anything more historically important so I don't see how even that argument was particularly valid, the idea that religious icons have far more historical importance than cultural icons is pretty ridiculous and as pointed out no one countered that the religious meaning was primary by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I was on wikibreak and missed it, but I support the second RM. While I might have liked my original better, the second will be an improvement. The status quo complies with neither WP:AT nor WP:DAB, so it should not be retained, not when so many editors realize it's a problem. At bare minimum, I think there should be a finding that there's consensus that it should change, but not a consensus to what exact titles, and call for a third RM or an RfC to settle it. (unsigned)
  • The close seems correct to me. Apparently there isn't "consensus that it should change" in fact. That "the idea that religious icons have far more historical importance than cultural icons" (red telephone boxes and Marioskha dolls according to that article) may seem "pretty ridiculous" to User:Crouch, Swale, but was stated by several editors. In fact no one seemed to be arguing the other way, that cultural icons "have far more historical importance" than religious ones. Personally, I'd find that "pretty ridiculous". Arguments for "cultural icon" as possibly primary were all about usage. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was also argued (express or implied) by several editors that all 3 major meanings have enough or maybe more long-term significance than the religious meaning and at the very least my argument was based on both criteria not just usage. Many oppose !votes appear to have relied on the long-term significance of Apple v Apple Inc. but that is quite obviously apples and oranges (!) since even though I don't really agree with the fruit being primary the fruit is very common in everyday life, more so than the company while the religious meaning isn't nearly as common as computer and cultural icons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's evaluate, usage, not met and no one disputed, long-term significance, not met as the cultural meaning and computing also have considerable long-term significance to, historical importance, not met due to the probably longer existence of cultural icons, etymology, per Necrothesp yes the major meanings may derive from the religious meaning but surely like Boston that's too obscure to most readers and this 4 letter term probably has some unrelated uses to including the acronyms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, long-term significance and historical importance were rightly asserted by several editors. That the "cultural icon" usage is older than the artistic one is simply not true, as you must know. That the sort of things we now call "cultural icons" had a similar status in ancient times is arguable, but no-one ever calls them that when talking of periods long ago. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most readers would know that, I knew that many planets are named after gods/goddesses from something I watched back when I was 7 and I think that's somewhat common knowledge but I don't think that's the case with icon. Regarding the point about what icons were called, the point is that its the primacy of the topic not necessarily what the topic is/was called, for example if Manchester was renamed "Lowestoft" and the name change caught on we'd have to move the Suffolk town to Lowestoft, Suffolk to make way for the city in the north west even if it had only been called this shortly that wouldn't mean that it had less long-term significance as the Suffolk town. Similarly as noted Pluto is about the planet known by us for less than a century as opposed to the deity but the planet, namely the topic has actually been around far longer its just that we didn't have a name for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately our naming policies nowhere require us to guess what "most readers would know"! But I think the discussion here has gone on long enough, hasn't it? Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain a list of pages which need daily attention because they regularly attract bad incoming links. Many are non-PT pages which squat at the base name, and a few of them have come up at RM recently. We managed to shift Spirit yesterday but most are unsuccessful. It just depends who turns up on the day. Certes (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is quite upset with the outcome -- there is always Wikipedia:Move review as an option. I understand trying to work with the closer (me), but taking it to Move Review removes any potential personal contention or other stuff = it's not personal, it's business. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I've no issues with the close. I still disagree with those who opposed me, but I think the closer summarised their arguments fairly. Certes (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review for Icon

[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Icon. 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. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed RM

[edit]

Hi, can you reconsider your close of the RM of California v. Murray? I am unclear on why you chose to close this as no consensus. There is a consensus that the current title is a poor title and the article should be moved somewhere. From what I see, the consensus would be to move to People v. Murray, the proposed title, as editors have determined that this case is the primary topic. Thanks. Natg 19 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: - as I noted in the closure "there are a couple of alternative targets", and there was not a consensus for one over another, in my opinion. No problem in proposing a move to what you see as the consensus outcome. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: I think you misread a lack of consensus. Of five participants (including nom), only one opposed the proposed move; all others supported it, and with solid policy-based reasoning. To avoid move review, please reconsider, or revert your close to allow further discussion and someone else to close. —В²C ☎ 13:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a Move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#California_v._Murray. —В²C ☎ 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Diego Álvarez RM

[edit]

I'm also curious about your close at Talk:José_Diego_Álvarez#Requested_move_27_April_2021. Three of four participants support a move, and two of the three expressed support for the originally proposed new title, José Diego (footballer). I think moving to that title reflects consensus better than leaving it at the current title, especially given Andrewa's policy-based argument which is supported by community consensus. --В²C ☎ 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that Necrothesp and Ortizesp both wanted to include the DOB. Had it not been for that, the RM would have closed as consensus to move. Perhaps they would like to comment here on why they thought the DOB is necessary? It seems contrary to policy to me, and no rationale at all was given by either so there might even be a case to discard those two !votes. Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I (and I'm guessing User:Ortizesp as well, given they were the original proposer) was merely responding to the concerns of User:GiantSnowman that too many footballers had similar names. I have no problem whatsoever with a move to José Diego (footballer) if that's supported by others; it's a far better option than the current title. Had I been pinged I would have said so. So yes, I say go ahead and reclose as a move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a faster solution than I was hoping for. There has been no response from Ortizesp who has now been pinged twice by two different people so I won't do it again, but I do note that they have made many contributions even since that last ping. So support reclose as Move to José Diego (footballer) while disclosing that I am involved. Andrewa (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I also support reclose as Move to José Diego (footballer). I was happy with José Diego (footballer, born 1954) as alternative in case there was pushback to my original proposal, but prefer my original proposal.@Born2cycle:@Andrewa:@Necrothesp:--Ortizesp (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s a bit misleading to say Ortizesp wanted to include the date. They merely agreed to support that alternative in addition to their original dateless proposal. —В²C ☎ 14:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is academic now that they have clarified it themselves. We seem to me to have strong consensus to omit the DOB and to move. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't academic when I pointed it out, though seemed obvious to me, before Ortizesp explicitly verified. But that's just something else the closer missed. --В²C ☎ 23:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the snowball clause now applies. The decision is to move to José Diego (footballer). We just need to do that in such a way that the article histories are preserved and confusion to those who come after us is avoided. Andrewa (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, we need to get an uninvolved admin to do it, if Ceyockey won't do it. --В²C ☎ 23:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the best thing is to discuss here and get them to agree to it. They can reopen the RM for further discussion, or reopen and immediately reclose as move now that the intent of two !votes has been clarified. If they don't agree to that (and blaming them for another thing the closer missed probably isn't helping to achieve that IMO) then the next step is WP:MR, not just another admin however uninvolved. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m more concerned with the broader closer behavior issues here than any particular RM. A pattern of misreading consensus, perhaps when a third option is introduced, and a reluctance to discuss/explain when questioned. —-В²C ☎ 13:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will get some attention and appropriate action: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Closer_not_discussing_questioned_closes. --В²C ☎ 23:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments there. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for José Diego Álvarez

[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of José Diego Álvarez. 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. В²C ☎ 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for California v. Murray

[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of California v. Murray. 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. В²C ☎ 05:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nina Nunes - move review

[edit]

Hi Ceyockey, Good day. I am not sure which is the right venue or who should I discuss the above with and I write to you here since you were the previous move review editor for the page. You have closed the discussion on 25 April 2021, Sunday with "no consensus" - see here -1. Four months later, another editor request to move the page name and was closed by a non admin to move the page - see here-2. I have concerned of the move for (1) the subject status and the sources have not been changed since your last closing and (2) User Havelock decision as they have only 257 main space edits since 2012 and a big gap of 0 edits for many years until this year which they made 50 edits - see here-3 and I am concern if the user did ready read the discussion and understand the guidelines before they made the move or they mainly wanted the name to be change for the reason outside the Wikipedia guidelines. I am here to request you to have a look of the move decision and if the move is warrant not justify or the lack of understanding of the guidelines by user Havelock, kindly make the necessary reversion of the move. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 00:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeia, I just saw your comment here and that it has been unanswered. So I went and read both RMs. I think the consensus was misread by the closer in the earlier RM and the closer in the subsequent RM got it right.
Consensus-finding aside, not sure where you got the idea that the fighter had to have three, not just two, booked fights under the new name for WP to reflect the change in the title of the article about the fighter.
You also seem to overlook how relatively irrelevant usage in sources are before a name change. If a name is changed from X to Y of course all the sources will have used X prior to the change. What’s relevant to title decision-making in these cases is usage in sources after the name change. And when this usage overwhelmingly reflects the new name, so should WP, per WP:NAMECHANGES, which I suggest you read carefully. And that was already the situation at the first RM, as noted in that nom. Hope this helps. —В²C ☎ 11:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle Thank you for your comment and understand the guidelines and I do not fully agree with your interpretation.. First, there is guideline stating it needs to be 3 fight for the name change, I suggested that as it by the time after the 3 fights there will be have enough independent reliable sources to indicated the new name as media would only talk about them when they have a fight/have fought. Secondly, the first name change was initial "only" after 1 week the new name changes where by only about 10 media use the name as compared to last 10 years source. The second name change was initial by a editor who went and still go around to nominate name change for "many" mma fighters especially from their name has a (fighter) after the page name as the primary name and suggest the names that has taken to change to have (xxx - profession name) which some I vote yes and some I opposed. The issues is fighter (nina nunes ) has only 1 fight after her name changed which is still has very little independent reliable sources as compared to the long standing original name (maiden name) so the same situation as per first name change. The closer who has only less than 260 main edits for the last 9 years and I am not sure the closed editor do really know the guidelines or just want to have the name changed because they read about the new name in the media. I would not challenge it the name change but this is not a good practice to have name change approved that has so little sources as compared to the "long standing" - 10 years - name which the subject has been known and close by an editor who might be questionable of the understand of the name change. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, first, what guideline specifies a minimum of three fights after a name change? Second, the relevant comparison isn’t 10 media who use the new name compared to the countless for the ten years prior, but the 10 who use the new name compared to how many who don’t since the name change. I don’t see any evidence of any source still referring to her as Ansaroff rather than Nunes after April 9, the date of the first RM. That’s definitive. —В²C ☎ 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle I had already answered your first question on my previous message. Second the subject has fought in mma professionally since 2010 and from 2013 she has fought in top tier promotion under the previous name and when you fought in top tier promotions you would have many coverages in the media that is without saying. Wikipedia is not news and we dont just follow what news say and update every single things just as subject who has a lot of coverage for one event would not warrant a page in Wikipedia. I have no objection of the name change, but I think it is too soon as the reasons I had mentioned on my previous message. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, A guideline is something the community has accepted and can be linked, like WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NAMECHANGES, not something you make up or propose in passing. Now, is there a guideline you can link that indicates three fights after a fighter’s name is changed before their title is changed, or did you make it up? —В²C ☎ 13:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle I have explained the 3 fights was not a guidelines and would have enough source to indicate the name change many times and I think you didnt even read what I have written and there is no point to discuss further for it is not a discussion per se here. Cassiopeia talk 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, I'm sorry, but I have read what you wrote, repeatedly, and when I read the words you wrote, specifically, "First, there is guideline stating it needs to be 3 fight for the name change, ..."[11], I understand those words to claim there IS a guideline, not that "the 3 fights was NOT a guideline". --В²C ☎ 03:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle Again, I have never claimed that 3 fights equal to IS but stating after 3 fights there would be enough IRS to support the name change. I dont think this discussion goes anywhere as I have stated over and over again yet you kept on claiming what I didnt say. No further discussion from me here on. Cassiopeia talk 04:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia I have no idea what “I have never claimed that 3 fights equal to IS but stating after 3 fights there would be enough IRS to support the name change” means. Since you won’t even bother to express yourself coherently, we agree this discussion isn’t going anywhere. That said, I have now come to understand that you were insisting that your mere suggestion that 3 fights after a name change would be a good point for WP to change the title of the fighter be followed, not that it was an established guideline or convention. However, there was no support for this approach, much less consensus support for it. Instead, the prevailing argument was based on WP:NAMECHANGES—it’s usage in sources after the name change that matters, and as soon as the new name dominates, WP should change. This is how I’ve seen it done for all other biography articles. I don’t see why this or any other fighter should be treated differently. Neither did most participating in the RMs. —В²C ☎ 13:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, I understand your concerns. The original decision of "no consensus" was undoubtedly correct, but a four-month gap is enough for things to change and we have to assume good faith on the part of User:Havelock Jones. Therefore I don't think there is much justification for overturning the second decision. I suggest you ignore the badgering above, which doesn't help us to a resolution, but just let it go with good grace. In time it will become clear whether the subject really is better known under her new name and everyone involved can reconsider. Deb (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, if you wish to ask for a move review, you must do so at WP:MR. There are instructions on that page. Before doing so, you should discuss your concerns on the closer's (my) talk page. I am sorry that this has not previously been drawn to your attention. I only became aware of this discussion when I was pinged by Deb an hour ago. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: Deb, I am against the move but I think it is too soon for there are only a dozen of source stating the newname against the last 10 years of the subject name before she was married. She has not had any fight since the last one which she used her new name and for that there are hardly any new coverage. I have no problem to let it go for I ask the closed admin just to check if they find the close was rightful in term of time (now) vs. in the future when more sources address the subject in her new name. Any way thank you for taking the time to write to me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 22:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Ed-Tech Press

[edit]

Howdy - just saw your update at Rotigotine. "Ed-Tech Press" books are straight-up copies of various Wikipedia articles as they were in 2019. In every instance I've dug into I've yet to find original material in one of those "books", and the authors are always falsified. The company's address is an accounting proxy as well. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move closure

[edit]

Ceyockey, am completely confused by your close at Talk:Rutland (city), Vermont#Requested move 25 March 2022. There are only two opposes, which seemed to me to be rather weak, and three times as many supports, which appeared to be a lot stronger. Curious because I would have called it a clear consensus to move. May I please learn more about your reasoning for "Not Moved—No Consensus"? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paine Ellsworth: - Numerical !votes are not the decider. Several of the 'supports' do not add any supporting explanation and are just numerical adds. There are several alternatives provided with explainations and no discussion around opposition to those, so we do not have any input on the viability of these alternatives. This is indicative that there is not a consensus for the specifically suggested move. There is a time factor as well; this request is a month and a half old and had it'a last input over a week ago (26th April), so I do not see this particular discussion leading to a consensus. If it had been closed before 12th April, maybe could have gone to 'move', but the first oppose is pretty relevant. My suggestion would be to renominate as "Rutland (city), Vermont" → "Rutland, Vermont (city)" and "Rutland (town), Vermont" → "Rutland, Vermont (town)"; this would address both the local concern and bring titling into better conformance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Medical College

[edit]

I declined the WP:A7. Schools cannot be deleted per A7. I'm surprised you don't know that. There are, of course, other deletion processes you can use. See WP:NSCHOOL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the revert. I actually very seldom do speedy deletion nominations ... like only a couple in the past 5 years ... I should have been more careful, yep. I'll go the PROD route, as suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons

[edit]

Great to move the page page as an undiscussed move.

Not sure if you are aware of this, the talk page of the article was not moved at the same time as the article itself and the original spelling still serves as a redirect. I presume us normal editors cannot move back due to technical reasons so I think an administrator is needed to revert the talk page move in line with the same spelling as the article title. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cithara

[edit]

I'm not sure I agree with Talk:Cithara#Requested move 29 November 2022—specifically, I think it was closed far too early. There was only two supports and one oppose after a little over a week sounds like re-listing to me. Indeed we could have pinged the numerous other editors on the talk page for input, as this topic had been discussed there before. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am checking into the proper technical action to re-open a closed move request ... I don't have a problem with reopening. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled back the close and relisted. I think that should be sufficient, but if I (or others) find a technical issue, I can dig into it further and fix. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ceyockey/Criticism&oldid=1143967388"