User talk:Red Slash/Archive 7

Nomination of George W. Bush and the Iraq War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George W. Bush and the Iraq War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush and the Iraq War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Please pull the Sarah Brown RM for a second

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The format of the next RM is under discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George H. W. Bush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahem

I've noted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closure. There is no way that was a clear-consensus issue. Please revert. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. With all due respect, yes, it was. There wasn't a single policy-driven argument made against the move, other than the reasonable concerns about what the scope of the article would or should be. Those concerns were explicitly dealt with in the close. "Involuntary celibacy" literally means someone wants to have sex but isn't able to; it is obvious that this is not the same thing as "incels". (I know plenty of sweet young ladies who would just love to be married, but haven't found the right guy yet. They're involuntarily celibate. They are not followers of the incel ideology. And the bulk of the article doesn't address their situation.) I suppose my close most mirrors the opinion of User:Rhododendrites and User:Kaldari. Given the scope of the article, oppose !votes such as yours didn't apply. Barring opinions like yours, I struggle to see a single oppose !vote from anyone that is backed in policy. User:SmokeyJoe's would be, of course, but was left unsourced (or worse, contradicted by sources). User:Willwill0415 made great points, though the article wasn't really about "involuntary celibacy" so much as "incel" ideology, so a new article would have to be written at the former. And since the idea the article is about has only a little to do with actual involuntary celibacy, User:VQuakr's appeal to WP:UCRN works to support rather than oppose a move. Red Slash 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absolute bull. There is no possible way you can claim there is clear consensus to move. No way. You should self-revert. No possible way anyone could claim this MR was either clear consensus nor not controversial. No freick way. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're discounting votes or interpreting them to mean the inverse of what they say, then I'd say that's more or less the definition of not clear consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Add to the fact that you have had several long time editors, including two admins, tell you that you've made a mistake, it should be obvious that it is neither clear consensus nor non-controversial. If you can't see that, the discussion at ANI needs to be re-opened. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A lot of people disagreeing doesn't make a move request's consensus unclear; those who opposed said things like "this is a neologism" (irrelevant per WP:AT), "we should write about a movement, not people" (irrelevant, because the article is still about a movement), "'incel', as opposed to 'involuntary celibate', isn't notable" (it is, quite obviously, and if it isn't, that's for AFD to decide), or "I don't feel like I have to explain myself" (yes, yes please do)... It was a very clear, focused consensus. (Also, discarding irrelevant !votes is precisely what a move closer is supposed to do. This is why humour was never going to be moved to humor. A bunch of Americans shouting "support!" doesn't move the needle at all against even one who says "oppose per WP:RETAIN". )Red Slash 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Red, I also think this was a stretch, especially considering the relisting period wasn't over and comments were still coming in. Would you be willing to move back and let the relisting run its course?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the high level of participation ongoing in the thread, I think it would be better to reopen it and move it back. I think that is the best avenue going forward. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I too prefer to see admins close contentious discussions -- or, as the case may be, discussions on contentious subjects -- but I also don't think there was anything wrong with the close otherwise and would say as much at the [seemingly inevitable] MRV. Regarding "high level of participation", prior to it being closed there was 1 edit on May 8, 1 edit on May 7, and 0 edits on May 6. Maybe it should've been allowed another full 7 days, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at recent participation at this formerly active discussion and conclude it had died down sufficiently to close. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Red Slash, how about the issue of every other page named after any sort of phenomenon, none are named for the people 0 eg no "white supremacist" page etc.? So it goes against established naming guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cas, this has been established independent of this RM. The article is about the subculture called "incels". A handful of people want it to be about the broader phenomenon that could be called "involuntary celibacy," that that has been shot down repeatedly. It's the subculture which has received a glut of news coverage as of late, not merely the phenomenon of people who cannot find romantic/sexual partners. I supported keeping it at its original location when it wasn't clear what the future of the page was -- the fraught combined concept of people who cannot find a partner and the subculture that takes that in misogynistic, and sometimes violent directions -- but as soon as it became clear it was exclusively about the latter, it seemed clear that we should name it after the subculture that is the subject of the page. Frankly I don't know why it was controversial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You know why. Admin bias and IRC cabal groupthink. The article is clearly about the incel subculture and not the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy. I am relieved to see it is now properly titled, at least, if the body of the article was not going to be about its purported title. Aquinassixthway (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Demonym (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to American

Zaragoza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Castile

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page move

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sig fix

Please fix your sig to use modern HTML; it's triggering the "lint" cleanup lists, and adding pages to the non-HTML5-compliant list for no good reason, an impediment to our migration efforts to pure HTML5. It's a quick fix:

• Old: [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] → Red Slash (this looks awful to anyone on bad-HTML patrol)
• New: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red </span>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] → Red Slash
• Even better: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] → Red Slash (red isn't semantically a property of a trailing whitespace character).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature as requested by SMcCandlish! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeedly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Crayola crayon colors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Crayola crayon colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians

I'm afraid I find this edit rather unhelpful. No edit summary, and it occurred mere seconds after 23:56, 24 July 2018‎ Andrewa (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (15,414 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Andrewa moved page Talk:Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago to Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians: RM), and before I had the chance to close the RM as I would otherwise have done (with an edit summary of moved).

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Andrewa, please revert me. I was just checking the backlog, and without checking to see how recently it had been done, I saw that the move was performed and the request unclosed, so I closed it. I meant absolutely no offense. I apologize. Red Slash 00:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. All good. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

East Timor: Move Review

A Move Review is being considered for East Timor. WP:NAC requires editors who conduct NACs to have "the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented". It appears that no review of the evidence was undertaken prior to writing the reasons for closure of the move request. Hence, I (the Nominator), am following WP:MR and seeking information directly from you beforehand. I welcome dialogue. You have been involved in previous contentious closures. In this case, it appears that you, as Closer, did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, because you do not appear to have considered the applicable policies and guidelines. For instance, both WP:MPN and WP:TIND should have been considered. As indicated in section 5 of the Talk page, a process for future Move Requests was being considered. I invite your response within five days. Te Karere (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for East Timor

An editor has asked for a Move review of East Timor. 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. Te Karere (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Car

As you were the nom of the RM discussion and other editors who have had major/recent involved have been notified, I'm notifying you of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Red Slash. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page moves on Trump articles

Dude... you know that these articles are under discretionary sanctions, right? You're moving these pages without discussion and against previous consensus. You need to move these back before I receive more reports from other editors and you wind up being dragged to a noticeboard. Your moves are going to get you in trouble, man... I don't want to see that happen. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page mover revoked

Hello. I've revoked your page mover rights, as I see a pattern inconsistent with this right. This would fall under WP:PMRR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Were there any moves made that were inappropriate? Red Slash 21:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How did you read the consensus on Trump? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I carefully examined the talk page prior to moving. There has been no full move request in over a year and a half. I imagined that WP:BRD would apply in the case that someone still disagreed. My rationale for acting boldly was to avoid a similar scenario to this one, which wasted a lot of people's time. Apparently that time-saving measure doesn't work here. No worries; I've started, participated in and closed quite literally hundreds of move requests, so another one is no biggie. I just would love to keep my tools to allow me to keep closing requests like this one which required the tools. Red Slash 21:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest I'm not at all impressed with this move - this is not what EM is for. And another relevant thing, the last thing we need at this moment is rogue actors going all bold over Trump pages. So you can consider this a rushed removal while we straighten this out. I'm going to review some more moves, including any which are justified with "I do not like this title and think it stinks", so bear with me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

OK I've had a closer look. I'm not going to take anything back or harp on too much but I will put the flag back for now. And you'll get some added comments because I'm still not impressed. Please consider when it's appropriate to use the EM flag in constrast to ordinary page moves. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Please use more appropriate descriptive summaries. Please respect consensus, previous discussions and the RM process. Please be extra careful with controversial topics. And please be sure to take a refresh of Wikipedia:Page mover. I'll save the lecture for next time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What is "EM"? The "EM flag"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, PM. EM is the internal jargon for the group, like sysop is for admins: Special:ListUsers/extendedmover -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Talk/Talk

Talk:Talk/Talk, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Talk/Talk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Talk/Talk during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crashings.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crashings.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dawnescapes.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dawnescapes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

George W. Bush (painter) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George W. Bush (painter). Since you had some involvement with the George W. Bush (painter) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nylon; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, dude, you're trying to template someone you reverted who made the correct decision based on multiple Wikipedia policies. See Talk:Nylon for the details. Red Slash 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Kildin Sami orthography

Hi Red Slash, I'm going to ask you about the same thing that I discussed with StraussInTheHouse a bit earlier today. I suggest reopening the move discussion you closed as "no consensus" at Talk:Kildin Sami orthography and/or following up with the required cleanup after the close: there were a large number of associated moves (seen here) performed just before the opening of this request, and most or all would need to be reverted in the event of "no consensus"--even though or especially because, as you wrote, there is no consensus "to move to this or any other title". Please consider processing the moves made necessary by the close, or consider letting the request move into the backlog naturally until someone is able to take care of it. Thank you, Dekimasuよ! 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I can't find the articles you're referring to. It's not anywhere on that talk page that I could see. Red Slash 20:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. WP:RMCI states very clearly that a discussion about moving A to B cannot affect page C. Another move request is necessary. That move request, if it results in "no consensus"... MUST result in a move back to the longstanding title. It seems likely that that'll be the result, but I would be contravening a Wikipedia guideline that I myself wrote if I moved Sámi people, among other articles, to their unaccented titles without a request there. Red Slash 20:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I do not agree that this falls under WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages, which would relate to new moves of pages discussed in the request. Rather, the undiscussed moves were clearly controversial in light of the lack of consensus in the closed discussion, and thus they are subject to immediate reversion under WP:RMUM. The guidelines are written to prevent moves from taking place by fait accompli, so returning the pages to the status quo ante is not contrary to WP:RMCI (which is an explanatory page, not an official guideline, correct?). Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there are reasons why Sámi people should exist but Northern Sámi orthography shouldn't. No one really discussed those moves within this move request. Please file a new move request to restore the prior consensus. Red Slash 17:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia move closure

Hi Red Slash, sorry, but would you be willing to reconsider your closure at Talk:Republic of Macedonia? Obviously you're right in finding a consensus "not to move" at this present time, but I would have thought there was also already quite a strong consensus to "move if and when" the naming becomes official. If we go by your closure, we will have to go through yet another full move discussion in a week. A lot of additional weiting time and paperwork just for process' sake? I can't really see why this wasn't closed with something like "on hold, consensus to move when X happens". Could you explain why you didn't see such a consensus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I didn't respond promptly. "Wait to move" as a closure would've directly violated WP:THREEOUTCOMES, which I wrote specifically to ensure that move requests have a predictable pattern of transparent results. It would've also violated WP:CRYSTALBALL. Red Slash 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Slash, you may be interested in a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia RM which is related to your work. There is a question of how the community discussions can be reconciled with the wording of Arbcom's motion, which specifies how an RfC ought to be carried out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

T9 (predictive text)

Per MOS:TENSE, we use present tense for software that has not ceased to meaningfully exist. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mulan (1998 film)

Why is Mulan (1998 film) proetected? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.31.60.49 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure. I have no ability to protect or unprotect pages. Red Slash 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

the protection was applied by you?5.31.60.49 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Old uploads

Hey, twelve years back you uploaded these tiny little glyphs. Are they useful for anything (in which case they should go on Commons, along with a descriptor of why they're useful) ? Or should I just delete them? DS (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Blast from the past! No, I used them in a long-deleted template. Thanks for the nostalgia - I've downloaded them now so they can be painlessly deleted. Thank you for the heads up! Red Slash 07:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You can ignore that last message I posted

Hi, i posted a message on your talk page earlier saying you accidentally took some songs off the List of songs containing the I-V-vi-IV progression that should have been there. I then realized that those songs only use it for brief periods. My apology. You were right. Thank you for working to clear up the list. Once again, I’m very sorry for accusing you of doing anything wrong. Best wishes. Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all, Needforspeed888. We're all trying to do the best possible in a field where there just isn't a lot of impartial high-quality third-party sources. Red Slash 23:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Move Request for G.I. Generation?

Now that the RFD has closed, can I go ahead and make a request to move G.I. Generation to Greatest Generation (cohort)? It seemed like the old move request had NPOV issues, so I'm wondering if the move request can also be listed on the NPOV Noticeboard? I'm not sure how this works. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Chairman

Can you explain how you determined there was no consensus at Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019?

The way I see it, in the main survey the majority wanted a change (19 wanted change, 11 opposed change), and in the secondary survey Chairperson (my 3rd choice, BTW), was clearly favored over the second choice (Chairman), by a factor of 2 to 1. How did you see it? --В²C ☎ 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon rereading your close I see you essentially categorized the !votes into three groups: opposed, support proposed title, and support alternative, and saw about equal support for each, so concluded there was no consensus among those. Fair enough, but surely adding the "support proposed title" and "support alternative" showed consensus favoring change, as I noted above. One of the participants noticed this, and hence initiated the secondary survey, which clearly showed consensus for Chairperson over Chairman. So I'm asking you to change your close to Consensus for Chairperson, or, at least revert. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

В²C-saying "consensus favoring a change" is misleading. The close rightly points out that no matter what option is chosen, about 2/3 would oppose it. That textbook lack of consensus. Let's drop it. --Netoholic @ 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not misleading to say consensus favored change. It's a fact. You can say the original survey did not make clear to what it should be changed, but that's not "no consensus" for change. What IS misleading is to interpret support for A as opposition to B and C, which is what you did when concluded that for each choice "about 2/3 would oppose it". For example, I supported "Chair (officer)", but am not opposed to Chairperson, and certainly support it over Chairman. This was not obvious from the original survey, but determining that was the point of the secondary survey, which did its job, and Red Slash seemed to ignore the clear favoring of Chairperson there. --В²C ☎ 20:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Red Slash, I think we need an admin to close this, or perhaps several editors or admins. What you've done is to allow vote-splitting to override the consensus to move the title away from chairman. I would say there's consensus to move it to chairperson, but because of a few people choosing chair, you've allowed it to stay where it is. Please revert the close. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV-this is already the second no-consensus close, and the second closer being harassed on their talk page. Time to let it go. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's supposed to be by strength of argument, not !votes. This is the second no-consensus close in a row and I could see it coming based on usage. I had mentioned only using chairperson vs chairman rm only but was shouted down. If in 6 months, someone wants to try a straight up Chairman vs Chairperson, perhaps it will change, perhaps not. You could even sweeten the pot in 6 months and agree that the opening line would read Chairperson (usually chairman or chair) etc... maybe that will get some editors to change their minds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by this close, as it doesn't appear to align with the discussion, where most !votes were based on whether or not the original name was acceptably gender-neutral. Preference between gender-neutral options is secondary and should have been evaluated after determining whether consensus to move existed. This one should be closed by an admin. Safrolic (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Red Slash. I'd ask you to consider something in addition to the comments above: besides the obvious (BADNAC #2), conversation seemed to be active and ongoing when you closed the discussion. At the time of the first close, 26 editors had participated. During the two days between the first unclose and your re-close, there were another 70+ posts from about 25 editors (5 of whom had not participated before). One editor pinged the 25 editors who had previously participated. Another editor posted invitations on the talk pages of 15 editors who had participated in the prior RMs from years ago. I don't think it's fair to the editors who were pinged or received talk page invites to have the discussion closed so soon afterwards. I'll note also that the two editors above who see a consensus for chairperson did not !vote for chairperson. I also voted for chairperson, and I also think there is consensus for that choice, but most of all, I did not think the discussion was over. The most recent ranked choice vote was posted just eleven minutes before you closed the discussion (expressing support for chairperson, incidentally). If it didn't have consensus yet, it was certainly proceeding in that direction. Clearly, a couple dozen editors were still interested in this matter, even after the first close. Why stop them? Thanks for reconsidering. Leviv ich 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to relitigate this right now, but suffice it to say that the closure will not be self-reverted. "This one should be closed by an admin" has no basis in policy, for what it's worth. Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title, at the timeframe of your choosing. Red Slash 21:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Two last quick points: WP:BADNAC refers explicitly to closures at AfD, not RM; also, we don't count votes, and no one was able to convincingly prove (via sourced points that align with our policies) that either "chairperson" or "chair" (or both of them) is as well-attested as "chairman". Red Slash 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree BADNAC is not the reason to revert, but if you're not persuaded to reconsider by the other reasons given above by a number of different editors, unfortunately WP:MR is the only recourse remaining. --В²C ☎ 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your "Two last quick points" are suggesting a possible supervote factor (rather than a reading of consensus). Please save the community a lot of time and effort and revert your close, because the grounds for reversal here at MR are about as strong as I've ever seen. --В²C ☎ 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You write "no one was able to convincingly prove" but you also terminated the discussion, a little more than ten minutes after the most-recent post. Twenty-five editors making seventy posts over two days doesn't persuade you that discussion was active and ongoing? If it does, then what was the benefit of stopping that discussion? Also, is "convincingly prove" the standard for moves? "Convincing" to whom? Rather than offering answers, your responses have raised more questions for me. Leviv ich 21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Red Slash, this will have to go to MR if you don't revert yourself, with all the waste of time that that entails. Please do us all a favour and undo your close so that discussion can continue. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It'll go to WP:MRV, just like Incel, East Timor, Islamic terrorism, etc. I'm used to threats of move reviews by now. No worries. There was no consensus and I will not be bullied into pretending we have one or that just a little more discussion would have created one. Red Slash 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Chairman

An editor has asked for a Move review of Chairman. 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. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ravens

Please give this another look. I really don’t get it.

• Talk:Ravens#Requested_move_10_May_2019

If you would reconsider or expand on your reasoning, that would be helpful.

Thanks, —В²C ☎ 20:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure. MrClog (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Red Slash 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

There's a discussion about you on the Administrators' noticeboard.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It spans two threads. [2] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y'all Red Slash 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:MRVw00tMRVw00t.png

The file File:MRVw00tMRVw00t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Isle of Noss

I'm a little bit unsure why you put The fact that "Noss" would be the best name for this island's article if nothing else called "Noss" existed was not in question. From the sources I had provided surely there was enough evidence to support the claim that "Isle of Noss" was the best title. At Talk:Isle of Skye#Requested move 5 June 2019 there was clear consensus to move to Isle of Skye but not to remove the island's primacy for "Skye" alone. Wouldn't something like that there is a consensus that the island isn't primary for plain "Noss" therefore a move is needed and therefore at minimum "Isle of Noss" would be natural disambiguation. However this doesn't affect the outcome since it was still moved so you're free to leave you're closing statement as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, I mostly wanted to clarify that I had read and was acknowledging the opposer. The move request over at Skye, which I had not in fact read, is an interesting parallel. I suppose I should have said that it was questioned but not proven by any means. Thank you for your kind response. Red Slash 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes indeed the opposer's arguments were strong but surely so were mine so there's no consensus that "Isle of Noss" is the best title (but because of ambiguity the move was needed) now if the status quo was that the island was at "Isle of Noss" (but plain "Noss" still redirected to it) and Griceylipper had had filed a RM to move it to plain "Noss" and I'd opposed then it to would have been closed as no consensus but the other 2 editors would probably have suggested putting the DAB at the base name anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  I slightly reworded it. So thank you again! Red Slash 22:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in the United States

Hi, could you revisit your RM close at Puerto Ricans in the United States? It appears the proposed title had 3 supporters and 1 oppose. The proposed title also avoids the problem you cite as to whether Puerto Rico is "in" the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that there was real consensus either way, but I don't have a dog in the fight, and I respect you tremendously, so I'll revert it. Red Slash 18:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Inter Milan

Considering your conclusion at Talk:Inter Milan, why was the article even moved in the first place? It started off at F.C. Internazionale Milano and was moved to Inter Milan based on faulty arguments. If there can truly be no consensus when good evidence is presented, then that suggests to me that the original move was an error. – PeeJay 08:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For 7 years and over 4 RN requests you have badgered editors to your point of view. Dozens of repeated none-policy based edits pressurising - yes pressuring others. Each of the previous 4 decisions over 6 1/2 years have been fully in line with en-WP article naming policy requirements. Neither the relevant policies or the evidence has changed in that time. The decision today is correct and was inevitable, regardless of how it is expressed - it is accurate that there is no consensus. There is no consensus because the policy has not changed. Look, it isn't about the numbers of !votes - it is about conforming to policy and the weight of evidence has been yet again proved robust. Rocking up every year knowing that neither policy or evidence has altered looks like bad faith. It is also clearly an indication of a WP:Battle approach, as is accusing various innocent editors of dishonesty. This has to stop. The article is where it is and fully conforms to policy. It is clear that you don't like it but you well know from many unconnected discussions you have had on other topics that that is not an argument which carries any weight.
@Red Slash - as an experienced RN contributor, can you advise any guidance on handling repeated requests by the same group of editors using non-policy based arguments / defective view of policy? Is it acceptable to have this discussion annually when policy has not changed? I'm sure I read somewhere that this was considered disruptive editing. I cannot find it, sadly. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Of the last four RMs, I initiated one of them, and none of the others were at my behest. If someone starts the discussion, I'm going to do my damnedest to make my case, and if people make arguments that completely ignore the rebuttals I've made, I'm going to remind them. Anyway, I don't think an average of one RM discussion a year is overkill; it's a barometer to see where community opinion lies. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that's your problem, not mine. Furthermore, saying our arguments are not supported by policy is a downright lie. We use the same policies as you, just from a different perspective, and we even have WP:NCST to go by, which you seem to conveniently ignore or casually dismiss every time. – PeeJay 11:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am the 3rd editor you have accused of dishonesty. I have removed your personal attack here which is inexcusable on an uninvolved User's talk page. You need to get a grip on your hostility. BTW, go check it out - I used WP:NCST to counter your claims. Please now respect my wish to disengage from further discussion with you at this venue. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Leaky caldron, there is no hard and fast rule against re-proposing a move, even if consensus were emphatically united. There is no reason why the move should not be raised again later. It is frustrating, to be sure, but it's just the way these things work. (One particular article took EIGHT REQUESTED MOVES to get moved to a stable title - so sometimes these repeated moves are worthwhile after all.) Thank you for defending my honor on this talk page. Red Slash 23:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RS. I did remove the clear personal attack made above - "downright lie" using (Personal attack removed) but I see the OP has restored it. It is a recurring thing in his arguments, sadly and I don't want your TP tainted by further vituperative attacks. Thanks for the guidance. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• PeeJay, I recognize the original title, but a move request was duly made, passed, and carried out seven years ago. You even participated in that discussion, I see. I cannot, have not, and would not revisit that close from seven years ago. I only can see what's in front of me. Consensus at one time determined that Inter Milan should be the title. Consensus has not yet determined at any moment from that point on that it should be moved to the long version. I do not know what mean or cruel remarks Leaky is referring to, and I have no desire whatsoever to check it out, but please stay civil on my talk page. Thank you. Red Slash 23:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Myrm

Hello. Red Slash, could you please clarify what templates {{Myrm}} (2, 3, 4) are used for? These templates are not linked from any how-to page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I use {{myrm}} to request moves. I found it easier than the normal template. I have never (or nearly never) used the other three. Red Slash 03:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Washington (city)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington (city). Since you had some involvement with the Washington (city) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Tacoma" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tacoma. Since you had some involvement with the Tacoma redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Red Slash, in regard to your closure at Talk:Kawésqar#Requested move 4 September 2019, I would have rebutted the long-term significance, but I didn't think it needed rebutting since it was so ridiculous. Think about it... how can a people have more long-term significance than the language they speak? It's like saying that the people were around a lot longer than the language they speak, which is ridiculous, isn't it? Judging by that and by the other arguments, how could you conclude a consensus to move as proposed in that debate??? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 10:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, while I respect you personally as an editor, I think that you're mistaken about the meaning of long-term significance. The noun is "significance". When we look for a topic with greater long-term significance, we are looking for greater significance. (What kind of significance? Long-term significance.) In other words, we don't measure which article has more long-term significance by checking dates. If Bob has twenty burgundy cars and you have ten fire-engine red cars, we should still be able to say that Bob has more red cars than you. They aren't redder than yours, but he has more cars.

Anyway, I am not here to argue the move, but it absolutely was a convincing argument that would've required some good arguing against it. Given the lack of good arguments to have a dab page there, it wasn't that hard of a decision. Red Slash 00:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy offline. Your points are well-taken, and though we disagree about your consensus assessment, I will not pursue the matter any further. (if you know what I mean !>) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

RM closure of Sri

Hi. It seems like you closed the RM but didn't carry out the move. Perhaps this was a mistake? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the user undid the move but Sri is more common then Shri 71.169.165.175 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a database error when I moved it, and I didn't notice (because it was the last thing I did before leaving the house). It's fixed now. Sorry! (In the future, if an RM has been closed, anyone has the authority to actually carry out the move.) Red Slash 01:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

NWCFM

I don't think NWCFM supports keeping Peanuts about the comic strip but actually supports the move since only Americans or people interested in comic strips will think of it when "Peanuts" is mentioned. As someone who has no interest in nuts either I'd only think of the nut which probably supports the argument that the nut could if anything be primary. PLURALPT says that we expect people to use the singular more often but the textbook example of a plural redirect is Cars (and I have heard the film mentioned lots of times unlike the comic strip) similarly you closed the Bones move as moved despite the TV series getting more views than Bone.

These are cases like Dundonald and Plymouth where its clear which topic is primary (the County Down one for Dundonald and the Devon one for Plymouth) but far less clear if there is a sufficient claim for primacy of those. With Peanuts one could point out that as the nut is both more popular and clearly more important that if anything the nut could be primary but per WP:NOPRIMARY its probably best to have none as primary. In other words if the discussion of primacy was over which topic is merely most searched for or most important for "Dundonald" or "Plymouth" the question could easily be answered but it couldn't for Peanuts.

The town in County Down gets 670 views while the other uses of "Dundonald" get 656 [[3]] and given the other partial matches like the earl you could actually have a negative number.

Plymouth is an interesting example, it clearly gets less views than the others combined but the argument about being the original place and its high population might be a case at last for PT#2 but an interesting point similar to PLURALPT in that readers and editors are used to seeing US places with the state included and therefore will search/link to them with the state more often as can be seen from User:Crouch, Swale/NC v PT#Examples of incoming links. Many people over the years have argued that with Worcester and there are similar examples of Leominster and Mansfield (that probably should be a DAB). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're certainly thinking on the right path. I agree that WP:NWFCTM has more to do with peanuts for many people than Peanuts. The question has more to do with PLURALPT than anything else. However, WP:ASTONISH is not, in my opinion, a valid argument for requested moves. People may be astonished to type in "peanuts" and get the most famous comic strip in American history, but then they look and their astonishment should die down quickly--that is, unless the comic strip really shouldn't have primacy, in which case that's an issue for our beloved Primary Topic Criteria 1 and 2.

However... I can see your point on Peanuts. I really can. I probably didn't look as carefully as I should have, and I didn't cite my backing very well. After reading your response here and re-reading the entire move proposal, I think that Peanuts as a term very well could be closed as ambiguous; maybe a DAB would be best. It's a tough call. (I am pretty meticulous when I close a request, but I wasn't very meticulous in my response here.) I think I was wrong. I also am pretty confident that Plymouth should be a dab. I am responsible both for Automobile moving to Car and for Cars to be listed at WP:PLURALPT, and in the move request you directly quoted me more than once... yeah, I botched it on this one. I'm sorry. Red Slash 00:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NWFCTM even makes reference to it and says "We certainly don't want to astonish our readers" so I'm not sure how why it would not be a valid argument for RMs. With Queens I'd agree (especially based on you're evidence) that the NY borough is probably the most common use of "Queens" but its not overwhelming so a DAB is best (and unlike Peanuts I certainly know of the borough). Very often I cite ASTONISH if there's also a noun (or other similar word) with the same name. Do you agree that with Longships, Barking and Lewis that this is appropriate for ASTONISH, and I'd say for Lewis that the given name would be the clear primary topic in England, how many people here mean anything else when they say "Lewis", not many but the last name might be occasional even when I was in Cumbria (on the border with Scotland) I don't think anyone ever talked about it but surprisingly I heard that the name Lewis is also used as a surname.

Thanks, indeed I can see the case for the comic strip being the most famous in American history and users being expected to generally use the singular and if the proposal was redirecting "Peanuts" to the nut the arguments would have been solid, but arguments about the nut being known by more people, getting more views, coming up 1st in Google and having more long-term significance are also policy based it seems that no PT would be best.

Lets look at arguments for primacy of Peanuts and Plymouth, in which case I'll list arguments for how (if there was one) there would be a stronger claim:

• Peanuts (comic strip)

  Readers and editors are more likely to use the singular for nouns meaning this important topic might be primary

• Peanuts (nut)

  More commonly known

  Comes up 1st in Google searches

  Gets more views

  Probably the original name

• Plymouth, Massachusetts

  (None)

• Plymouth, Devon

  (Probably) more commonly known

  (Probably) comes up 1st in Google (I'm not going to make that assertion due to my location)

  Gets more views

  Original name (which is important to Thanksgiving!)

  Higher population (267,918 v 56,468)

  Readers and editors are more likely to use the state for the MA city

Obviously none of those points necessarily show a topic actually is primary, just how it might have a stronger claim. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Closure of requested move

Hi. You closed Talk:Hsinchu#Requested move 14 November 2019 this requested move as no consensus when there is clearly one. WP:NHC: Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Ythlev (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just stopping by to note that I agree with the close. There was a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move. BD2412 T 03:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Care to explain? Even if we were going with counting heads, it's two yeses vs one no. And the opposing user did not engage in discussion. Ythlev (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There was no policy-based reason to move the articles--you said precision, but how does moving New Taipei City → New Taipei make it... more precise of a title? That didn't make sense. And you had no plan for what to do with the old titles. If you intended to make them dab pages, then it was a WP:MALFORMED move request.

Have you seen a move request before? I would really encourage you to take a look at WP:RMRM and see how most move requests are laid out and explained. It might help you in the future. Red Slash 19:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Spilo

The article Dan Spilo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article mostly just talks about an incident that happened on the TV show Survivor that is already explained on the season article (Survivor: Island of the Idols). This article can simply be merged with the season article. This article is also very biased and is drama-centered.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jayab314 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dan Spilo

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Dan Spilo, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page", (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
  Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Survivor: Island of the Idols. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Survivor: Island of the Idols, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

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. Jayab314 11:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rain in Seattle

Rain in Seattle is problematic.

You are an experienced editor so why would have expected you to be familiar with Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

In future, please find consensus on the talk page before blanking items you unilaterally disagree with. ~Levonscott (Talk) 05:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the edit summary lol Red Slash 05:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidently I have, as justified in my final sentence above. Once again, in the future, please find consensus on the talk page before blanking such changes, even if you personally disagree - for example, every item you have unilaterally removed has citations agreeing with it. If you wish to continue with this line of reversion, seek consensus here. ~Levonscott (Talk) 05:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move of "Google Stadia" to "Stadia (service)"

Hi there. As per the instructions on Talk:Google Stadia, I'm posting on here before submitting a move review. Basically I am also in support of renaming the "Google Stadia" article to "Stadia (service)", as some others were. First of all, consider the following in Wikipedia's article naming guidelines (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

— WP:COMMONNAME

As it says, the "common name" only applies if "a significant majority" of sources use that same name. But where there is "no single, obvious name" (which I would argue is the case here, since some news stories refer to "Google Stadia", and many refer to it as just "Stadia": [4] [5] [6] [7]), then people should consider Wikipedia's naming criteria. The first three of those criteria (recognisability, naturalness, and precision) could arguably apply to both "Google Stadia" and "Stadia (service)". But the last two criteria are interesting:

Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below) Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

— WP:CRITERIA

For both criteria, I would argue that "Stadia (service)" is, without a doubt, the more fitting option. It is more concise, and no longer than necessary. AND it is far more consistent with similar articles' titles: Steam (service) (not "Valve Steam"), GeForce Now (not "Nvidia GeForce Now"), PlayStation Now (not "Sony PlayStation Now"), and also for things like GameCube (not "Nintendo GameCube") and Xbox (console) (not "Microsoft Xbox"). There is also the fact that "Stadia" seems to be the official name of the service, not "Google Stadia" - and yes I know Wikipedia doesn't seem to value "officialness" when choosing an article's name, but I do think it counts for something, even if Wikipedia doesn't. Especially since the official name is more concise and consistent with other similar articles (fulfilling those two criteria for naming articles) than "Google Stadia". Anyway, do you think a "move review" is something to enact on this topic? I just wanted to express that I support the article being renamed, and apparently adding the issue to your talk page is the way to do it. Obviously it's relatively soon since the move was discussed so I don't know if a "move review" can be had so soon? But like I say, I just wanted to express my support for renaming the article basically. CyclingFan1234 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reaching out to me here! I'll respond on the article talk page. Red Slash 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

PLURALPT and colours

I have produced a list of colours with their singular and plural forms at User:Crouch, Swale/Colours, as can be seen most of the time the plural form goes to a DAB even if the singular is about a colour. The obvious exception is the fact that Oranges goes to the fruit as is given in an example of WP:PLURALPT since only the fruit really has a plural form but the colour can sometimes also be when it refers to a group (or similar) such as in Monopoly the "oranges" being St James Place/Bow Street, Tennessee Avenue/Marlborough Street and New York Avenue/Vine Street but indeed the fruit is likely the primary topic for the plural still. There are several other interesting examples, Blues which I think the music genre is correct since its a well known topic, but then there is Pinks and Grays, Pink (disambiguation) does list one other plural usage but that's only mentioned in the Fox hunting article but given the franchise series seems to be relatively obscure disambiguation (by sending the plural to "Pink (disambiguation)" seems sensible. With Grays even as someone who isn't that far from it I still don't think the Essex town should be primary especially given there are 2 other places called "Grays" one also being in England plus a few sports teams. Grays was mentioned at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 28#Category:Wells but as an American I'm sure you would agree "Grays" doesn't primerily refer to the Essex town. Violets is another interesting example, should that go to the colour like the oranges example of PLURALPT or are the sports teams prominent enough? Lastly I do obviously think Limes should be moved (which you moved in 2013) per WP:ASTONISH and PLURALPT and maybe that could be a redirect to the singular DAB or be a separate DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting observations! I would have to say I think limes should be the fruit, grays could be the city, Pinks seems worthy for discussion, and I would instinctively think Violets should be the flower. I think you're dead-on about the blues and oranges. My question would be, if someone wants to know about gray, why are they typing in "grays"? The odds of someone doing that, to me, are outweighed by the odds of someone legitimately wanting information on the English town. Red Slash 20:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started RMs for Limes and Pinks (noting that there are flowers with this name) and retargeted Violets to the SIA. I wouldn't however redirect "Limes" to the fruit since people could land there from external sites and be inconvenienced. With Grays I do agree that people are likely to be looking for the town but given the number of other uses I would still say its safest to disambiguate. Views[[8]] clearly show the town gets much more views than the other 2 places called "Grays" but some other less likely articles get more. I think we should usually only have primary topics when a meaning is clearly the most common meaning by some order of magnitude such as Paris or Massachusetts not merely in cases where a meaning might be more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Fauci

Three "supports" vs one strong oppose is not a WP:SNOW - your commentary and premature close seems more like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Revert and reopen the RM, and let it run its course - there is simply no urgency in this situation that would be harmed in letting it run its course. -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Although I agree with the outcome, I also would have let this run longer before closing. BD2412 T 00:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• It's reverted, but this feels extremely WP:POINTy to me. All it's going to do is waste time. Red Slash 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

LA

Hi Red Slash,

I want to give you an explanation for your "??" and the bizzare appearence of the edit you reverted here:

It seems that there exist two groups of Wikipedians with roughly the same size: One thinks LA stands clearly primary for Los Angeles, the other one it clearly stands primary for Louisiana or something else. The mess began when LA was changed from a disambig into a redir (to Los Angeles), 08:50, November 25, 2006. Since then, the second group is constantly "repairing" this by changing LA into a redir pointing to the disambig La.

See the edit summaries in the revision history of LA, where you will find a lot of discussion... BTW, you (19:52, September 1, 2013‎) and I (23:44, August 21, 2019) were also involved...

--Cyfal (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked that, as well. It seems obvious to me, but I get the controversy. WP:RFD will have to get involved if this gets reverted, I think. Honestly, they should have been involved a long time ago... Red Slash 23:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

Hi, since you were involved in previous naming discussions, would you like to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus? Markussep ^Talk 08:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Verona Barnes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verona Barnes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verona Barnes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fall

That was an interesting RM discussion. The support side argued that there was no primary topic for "Fall" by #1 and by #2 there are several other important topics. The oppose side argued that by #2 the season is clearly the primary topic for "Fall" and that none (or only the accident meaning) are called just "Fall". The outcome was no consensus which I think was correct and reasonable (even though I'd argue that no consensus should sometimes result in no primary topic). But there was consensus to temporarily move the DAB to the base name to facilitate a DABTEST (which has now been done). As an aside is "Autumn" also common in the US or is "Fall" nearly always used? This source (which has some interesting history) says that "Autumn" is more formal though. In England although most people (at least adults) would probably know/understand "Fall" as being a season to, that term is very rarely used in England for the season. I suspect "Autumn" is used per MOS:COMMONALITY since globally it indeed seems like that that term is more common at least (which is why we moved Car). Another interesting example is patience where although I think that term was more common in the past, I'd say nowadays "solitaire" is more common due to Microsoft Solitaire. Similarly I looked up "Armory" due to the fact that in Citadels there's a card with that name even though I'm in England. I expect that as time goes on there will be less conflict between national variations of spellings due to the internet and products being made in 1 country for multiple. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

People do definitely use "autumn", though much less commonly. There even was a Barney song about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC8iLE6HgDg - but "fall" is more common even in academic language here. I arbitrarily picked a US university and its "return to campus" page is full of "fall" https://www.ucf.edu/coronavirus/returning-to-ucf/ . I agree that the various varieties of English are certainly converging, though that process may take quite a while. Autumn is certainly the correct choice in the meantime due to commonality; I would absolutely oppose a move from Autumn to Fall. (And finally, it's really interesting how both our dialects of English have "spelling traitors", to coin a term; we have a huge clothing manufacturer located in America that is inexplicably called Under Armour, and the number of strip malls called "something Centre" befuddles the imagination.) Red Slash 19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Britannica uses "Autumn" (even though it uses "Automobile" rather than "Car") but does note "Fall" is common in America. And there is an article on why British spelling is used in the American brand. Maybe that could even be added to the article under its history? though it might be trivia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

List of operas

Your close of the list of important operas makes me think that you don't understand what the list is about. If a present name is bad, and a suggested name is bad, why move?? Now we have a title which doesn't appear once in the article. I enjoy irony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the comments on the article talk page? Will you revert the close, please? The number of those unhappy exceeds the number who support the present name which is never a good sign. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was away from Wiki for some time. I probably would've reverted on sight once I saw this. I'm sorry. Red Slash 22:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, Red Slash, add your opinion to the move review. Techie3 (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Move review for List of prominent operas

An editor has asked for a Move review of List of prominent operas. 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. Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hanford

I'm not convinced that a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Hanford Site is appropriate since Hanford, California gets 4,470 views compared to 10,975[[9]] for the site. Even if many readers looking for the place in California search with the state its still (IOM) unlikely most readers would be looking for the site with "Hanford" alone. When I first saw this move I assumed the redirect target was Hanford, California (population 57,703). Given that this move appears to have been made and reverted a number of times I'd suggest it should go through a formal RM. I'd note that since the site is a sub topic of the community (and is linked there) its debatable if its should even be included on the DAB page at all per WP:PTM. However when I Google Hanford (from England) I do get a number of results for the Dorset school and site which suggests both maybe are OK on the DAB. Maybe the Washington one should be mentioned as the initial entry (which I'd agree with you're changes to Bellingham) which I think MOS:DABORDER does allow. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's... debatable, for sure. It probably needs to be addressed with a formal requested move, you're right. But I will add, the Hanford Site has absolutely nothing to do with Hanford, California, which is several hundred miles away - in other words, it's not a "subtopic" of any community. Red Slash 22:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I was aware the site is in the Washington one not the California one, I was just pointing out that that place is likely a stronger contender for the name. There is now an RM at Talk:Hanford (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 September 2020 so there's no need to revert the move for now although as noted if its closed as no consensus the status quo will have to be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Apple (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Apple (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Corona 8 months on

Looking at the close Talk:Corona#Requested move 29 March 2020 I can say that the close was definitely good, it was clearly shown that people were far less likely to be looking for the stellar meaning than the other ~75 meanings on the DAB page even before the 2019 pandemic as per my and Uanfala's page views. The long-term significance criterion was more interesting but indeed there did appear to be enough evidence to support the idea that the stellar meaning doesn't satisfy that either. The 1st oppose !vote didn't appear to be correct (apart from maybe the recentism point) since it was shown that many of the uses have nothing to do with the stellar meaning. The 2nd !vote did appear to be policy based though the 1st sentence was countered the 2nd point "I think the astronomical meaning has more long-term significance" I think I agree with but merely having the most isn't enough, substantial is usually required so yes there was indeed a clear consensus to move.

I get the impression that "Covid" has become more common (though I never use that term) than "Coronavirus" in recent times the term "Corona" is certainly still used, see this video and this news report. For the record the "tis the season to be jolly" is reference to the COVID-19 tier regulations in England, my home county Suffolk (or state in US terms) is currently in tier 2 though we have some of the lowest rates.

Once again a good close, its quite clear that readers are better of being one click away from the large number of meanings than having the stellar meaning at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Paintspot: regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 30#Corona pandemic those 2 sources are additional evidence of people calling it "Corona". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Crouch, Swale: I'm sorry I never replied! Yeah, I don't always feel good about my closes a year later or so, but I feel pretty good about this one. I also agree--"Covid" seems to be winning the war for the short way of saying it. (Interestingly, "cóvid" is absolutely dominant, like 99% of common usage, in casual spoken Spanish in my experience. Of course, to us Spanish speakers, "corona" means "crown" ) Good on us, lol. Red Slash 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I usually use "coronavirus" but I'm aware most do say "covid" today which seems to generally only refer to the 2019 type, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Covid. I expect in Spanish "corona" is less common due to the multiple other uses of "crown" and would be so if we'd called it "crownvirus". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:P" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:P. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Template:P until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. czar 03:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi Red Slash, I wonder if you could have another look at the discussion following the closure of the requested move for Commonwealth, please? I realise that I should have got into this discussion earlier, and also didn't read the bit at the top about contacting the closer before carrying on the discussion the other day, but am doing so belatedly now. I think that had the discussion continued for longer with more editors taking part, the outcome may have been different. Given that Certes fixed 500 incorrect links, and I followed by cleaning up another 30 or so, leaving only about 17, surely that suggests that the primary topic was a bad choice? If you think this worthy of re-review, please let me know and I will try to canvass the opinions of a few more editors on the topic. It just seems silly to leave something which is going to carry on requiring vigilance and fixes for the rest of its life! Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Laterthanyouthink:, I appreciate your response. It sure does seem like many people link it thinking they're getting an article that's all about the government of Australia. And I get that that's really quite unfortunate, and has no easy fix other than the one you propose. (I do not mean this sarcastically at all - don't know how well that's coming across!)

But WP:DABCONCEPT is something we've had at Wikipedia since long before there were bots that scanned for links to dab pages, and if football makes it work (can you imagine how many articles start out "Bob Smith is a football player from ..." ?), there's no reason why commonwealth can't either. Of course, I'm personally disinterested in that; honestly, you make a pretty decent point and I could easily find myself supporting a move request to make it a dab if such arguments were presented. But all I could do as the closer was look at the discussion, say "well, WP:DABCONCEPT articles are a thing, and it sure seems like this discussion is arriving at a general consensus to keep it as a dab concept article."

However, there is absolutely no rule against re-proposing the move, though I'd certainly suggest not doing it before April or so at the very earliest (realistically, try July). People do get upset about re-proposing failed move requests too quickly. Good luck! Red Slash 01:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me with your helpful comments and explanation (and yes, I'm always careful about football players because they play such a funny version of the game in Oz!). Fair enough, and I think I will make a note to myself to return to it in the future, because I think I can make a case for its meaning to have evolved over time to an extent that it is now an ambiguous term - but I will do some work on the article first. And there is also WP:COMMONSENSE... Thanks again for your input! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested move 23 January 2021

Hello,

I humbly request you take another look at your closure and consider allowing someone else to close it - your close does not even explain how you evaluated !votes, and in fact it seems you may have explicitly ignored the fact that per the AC/DS moratorium on "insurrection" discussion any !vote advocating for that title should have been ignored. Furthermore, you do not at all explain how many editors voiced concerns that the subject of this article is not the overall unrest that occurred in Washington D.C. that day is anywhere near based on Wikipedia policy (it's not - it's WP:OR). You lastly ignore the fact that per that discussion and the many analyses on the page, WP:COMMONNAME is met by one specific name - and nobody very few editors in that discussion has provided a policy-based reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. To put a long story short, your close leaves a lot to be desired, and quite frankly your close looks to me more like your own addition to the discussion - not an analysis of consensus and the points provided by those discussing. For these reasons, I request you either expand your close to specifically address the policy based reason for even considering "insurrection" against an AC/DS and ignoring the WP:COMMONNAME argument in favor of arguments based on original research, or simply revert your close and allow a different person to close it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: You have stated that you are going to seek a review if Berchanhimez doesn't overturn, so I believe your comment is inaccurate regarding your request above, so I find discussing this isn't going to go anywhere. However, I believe that you should consider striking out and nobody in that discussion has provided a policy-based reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME based on my own comment in the move discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: - struck and replaced with "very few" - I missed your comment, which I will agree provides a "policy-based reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME" even if I disagree with that reason and feel that it wasn't supported in the discussion. Apologies for missing your comment when I claimed "nobody". Further, I stated I would seek move review as that is where this will likely end up if not reverted - but discussing with the closer is the first step, hence why I am here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Howdy! I looked again. I evaluated comments based on Wikipedia title policies, which were cited various times in the discussion. These included common name, PRECISE, and others. I used the word "insurrection" only to refer to the actual thing that happened and did not consider any form of it to be a possible article title.

I'm extremely confused about your comment on what the subject of the article is. Wikipedians absolutely get to decide what the subject of an article is. If you want to write an article about, say, Promotion and relegation, you can (though obviously that one already exists). But if someone says "you know what, I think promotion and relegation should have their own articles", then Wikipedians discuss to decide whether to split the article (changing what the subject of the article is!) or leave it as a single one (again, deciding what the subject of the article is!). How in the world do you have any sort of encyclopedia without the editors getting to decide what the subject of their articles is?

This is what people were referring to. In the discussion, a large amount of people expressed concern that the title "riot" puts the emphasis on the wrong thing or incorrectly describes the subject of their article. Yes, "riot" is used an awful lot in news coverage about the events of January 6. But (according to the opposers) it is an inaccurate term to describe the breaking and entering of the actual building, which is what Wikipedian consensus has determined for the article in question to be about.

As it happens, I honestly prefer "riot" as a title because I think COMMONNAME should outweigh those points. The points I am asserting here are not my own and I personally believe them to be mostly irrelevant. But they were effectively made by a significant block of Wikipedians. Consensus was reached. With all due respect, the page stays. Red Slash 03:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for taking another look, and out of respect for your consideration I'll inform you here that I intend to post this at move review over the next few days, as I still do not think you have considered appropriately the points of original research on behalf of those arguing against "riot" and the moratorium on "insurrection" in choosing not to discount certain !votes that were based solely on the editor's preference for "insurrection". I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I do not think that this is necessarily your fault, but I do feel that there are points that you have failed to take into account in closing this discussion that need to be considered. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've opened it, I want to come back to say that I do greatly respect you for taking the time to close it. I've seen multiple administrators say the equivalent of "I wouldn't touch it with a 39.5 foot pole" or "I don't have the time to deal with it". I do, however, think that your close was lacking in a few areas - but I think that this is more fault on the fact that the AC/DS wasn't enforced during the discussion by any admin and of the vast amount of data/evidence for WP:COMMONNAME that exist. TLDR: While I find fault with your close, I do not think the fault with your close is your fault. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Move review for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. 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. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing charts together with RM

Hi, please consider undoing the closure of the section containing those charts (exhibit a, b, c, d) because a number of editors default to rudimentary google searches (one billion results for dog. dog is the common name.), they tend to reoccur, and talking about how these results mean nothing creates a lot of drag in the discussion that can perhaps be avoided by letting these more scrutinized materials stay on the talk page (it's already been an issue in the newly opened RM). The charts had only shaped up in the past few days, and a lot of people that will participate in the new RM probably haven't seen them. Your RM closer can link to the section, it doesn't have to be physically folded into the RM which it grew out of. Just an idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I received guidance from another user on how best to proceed with this in the meantime. Thank you for your work on the closing. Cheers — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your close

Hello, Red Slash. I don't like having to question you regarding your closure, but there is a reason for me to do so. When you closed the RM for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, there was a section underneath it called "Ongoing analysis of naming trends" that was also closed in your edit. Did you intend to close the RM section and the following section in the same edit? I ask because I believe you may have intended to only close the "Requested move 23 January 2021" section and its sub-sections instead of closing both that section and the "Ongoing analysis of naming trends" section and its sub-sections. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I ... really struggled with where to cut off the move request, because it all sort of blended together. Your implicit request is reasonable, @Super Goku V: - I'll give it a try. I apologize if I closed something off that should not have been closed off. Red Slash 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts were that if you accidently closed the section, I would restore it to how it was before being closed as a user after you merged the two sections into the RM section, which complicated things. Regardless, since my comment above, a bot archived the whole thing, so it is moot now. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ended up not being moot. Thank you and sorry again for the trouble.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Zz" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Zz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Template:Zz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So {{zz}} got deleted, leaving the other member of the pair, {{aa}}, effectively stranded. Any preferences on what to do with it? – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not much sense in keeping it Red Slash 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Java Programming Language language" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Java Programming Language language. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Java Programming Language language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RM close

Hi, thanks for closing my RM at Independent Women Part I. However, I note that Independent Women is now a red link, it might be best to leave it as a redirect. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Aa" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Aa. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Template:Aa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 20:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious

places in Pennsylvania

Thank you for quality articles, such as This Desert Life, Rose Cleveland, many places in Pennsylvania split off the list and Chief Seattle's speech, for service from 2005, in English and Spanish, arriving at a concise and principled user page, for a long-desired move, - Matt, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2587 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! I appreciate this immensely! Red Slash 18:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Um... did you actually just unilaterally do a move to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol without any closure of a move discussion? Do you realize that there is still a move review going on about the last renaming? See wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 June#2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Every rename has been controversial. Did I miss a discussion where this new name had consensus? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

... The move to "attack" was overturned. I just performed the reversion. Red Slash 08:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird. When I looked at the RM page, it hadn't been closed yet. I see now that it was overturned yesterday. I must have been looking at cached page in my browser. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Pristina International Airport Adem Jashari

Red Slash, I want to know the reason why you changed the name of Pristina International Airport from Pristina International Airport Adem Jashari to Pristina International Airport A-J and turned it into Pristina International Airport?

The official name of the airport is Prishtina International Airport Adem Jashari and not Pristina International Airport A-J, while the name Pristina International Airport is a referred name. BalkanianActuality (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@BalkanianActuality:, we usually prefer to use the name people call it, not the "official" name. See Joe Biden (not "Joseph Biden"), United States (not "United States of America"), or many many other examples. Red Slash 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Red Slash, WP:COMMONNAME applies to the names of people and countries, the official name of the airport is Pristina International Airport Adem Jashari and this name in addition to being verified by the airport logo and the airport website is also verified by Limak Holding, Kosovo Business Registration Agency, the Office of the Prime Minister of Kosovo and Partnerships Kosovo. There are hundreds of airports which have official designations that include a person's name — a glance at Category:Lists of airports by country will confirm such airport names from Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai International Airport), Algeria (Houari Boumediene Airport), Zambia (Kenneth Kaunda International Airport), Zimbabwe (Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport), etc. BalkanianActuality (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@BalkanianActuality:, you have a case that can certainly be made. I think you probably need to file a move request and see if people agree with you. I do not agree with making this move unilaterally with no prior consensus. Red Slash 20:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Thx

Hi, thanks for supporting my move request. RealIK17 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see you again

Happy holidays. Jehochman ^Talk 01:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Present tense

Greetings. Present tense is the default for in-text attribution of written material:

Y John Rawls (1921–2002) was an American moral and political philosopher in the liberal tradition.

Y John Rawls argues that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance.

If the written work still exists, then for all intents and purposes the author is speaking directly to the reader, regardless of when the piece was written or if the author is still alive. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Snow close

I've reverted your "snow" close here, as it does not qualify. I'm guessing you misunderstood the "procedural close" !votes as being in favour of overturning the move, but they are instead in favour of closing the MRV until the AfD runs its course. I will leave it to you to revert your move of the article and clean up whatever impact that had on the open AfD. – bradv^🍁 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Bradv, Red Slash's close may not have qualified per WP:SNOW, put it did qualify per WP:CLOSE, which says consensus is determined by what is the most appropriate policy. Your vote in the AfD is not within policy, and your fellow arb BDD said as much at the DRASTIC AfD [10], so you are encouraged to change your vote. Since there are multiple RS calling China's hiding of the early outbreak a cover-up, the closer will of the AfD will have to strike !vote per WP:IDL, and move the content to the Chinese government response to COVID-19 draft. All the delete !votes in the AfD treat the article as if it is only about the origin cover-up, when it is primarily about the outbreak cover-up, which is independently notable of the Chinese government response to COVID-19. If the AfD is closed as improperly as the RM was, then it will have to go to WP:DRV, and if that is closed improperly too, then you will have to recuse yourself as WP:INVOLVED when it comes to ArbCom. I will leave that to Adoring nanny, LondonIP, Usernamekiran, Francesco espo, Ched Mhawk10, Citobun, Forich, Zxcvbnm, Loganmac, RenatUK and FOARP. Adios. Gimiv (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Red Slash's close. The AfD should really run its course before MRV, if it's still needed at that point. Neither do I see a problem with Bradv's vote at the AfD, however. Unlike my issue with Drastic Team, COVID-19 misinformation by China does include cover-up allegations. Now, whether it should, and to what extent—these are regular editorial questions. Let's see what comes of the AfD and go from there. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

BDD, dictionaries define cover-ups and misinformation very differently. BradV's vote would leave no place on Wikipedia for the contents of the leaked documents reported by CNN and AP. In this old discussion, one of the editors !voting at the AfD to delete the cover-up page even explains how cover-up allegations don't belong in the misinformation page. Many of the new RS in this edit allege a cover-up of figures till the present, and this WaPo editorial board opinion piece alleges a cover-up not only of the early outbreak, but also of human transmission. BradV and Thucydides411's votes to redirect and delete are a call to censor these highly notable allegations from Wikipedia and will just kick the can down the road, resulting in another RfC, or an ArbCom case. Gimiv (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv:, @Gimiv:, @BDD: I will certainly not be making any further edits on this topic. I think the procedural close (and reversion to the previous title before the hyper-WP:INVOLVED close) is highly appropriate but I'll let others decide. Red Slash 20:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

post move cleanup

Hi. I hope you are doing well. Generally, it is a good idea to take a look at the archive settings [11] after a page move which includes subpages :-) Keep up the good work. See you around. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you! Sorry about the extra work I caused you! Red Slash 22:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

lol. No need to say sorry. I am on mobile, and saw your talkpage after you pinged me. It is always nice to see long term editors returning. Welcome back! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)