Jump to content

User talk:Vpab15/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boor (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) 09:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Vpab15. 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)

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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

May 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Robertsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Chinese Singaporeans, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. robertsky (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Viktor Babariko

Hi, I believe Babariko's page (and those of other leaders of opposition) should be moved too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktar_Babaryka Buxareu (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems it is the same case. I would say if there is consensus to move to Tikhanovskaya/Tikhanovsky, we should also move the other articles without the need for a move request, assuming it is clear the name is the most frequently used in English media sources. Vpab15 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Buxareu (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing move requests

Hi Vpab15, I had to reopen the request at Talk:Avengers (2020 video game)#Requested move 7 September 2020 because it was closed prematurely. Move requests are designed to remain open for at least seven days to give interested editors a chance to participate. Move requests that are eligible to be closed can be found on the WP:RM page under elapsed listings and in the backlog. Thank you for your help with these move requests and for closing only those that have elapsed or are in the backlog. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth, it seems I messed up, sorry. I usually check move requests from the backlog only, not sure how I got into that move request. I will be more careful in the future. Vpab15 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure of RM at Époisses de Bourgogne

Hi, I wouldn't say there's a consensus at Époisses de Bourgogne yet. There also may still be ongoing discussion between Born2cycle and In ictu oculi. I suggest reopening it and relisting it for another week. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add my agreement. The question of which article should refer to the village and which to the cheese is an interesting one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion was ongoing (and has even continued after the close) so I agree this is a case for relisting. Vpab15 please undo your close and relist. If this goes to a formal MR the RM is likely to be reopened and why have a reluctance to cooperate in your record? —В²C ☎ 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I have re-opened the RM. I thought the consensus was clear, but no harm in extending the discussion to allow more editors to participate. Vpab15 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Vpab15, I have relisted the discussion for you. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your request at WP:RM/T

Following your request at WP:RM/TR, I have done the move request for you. Please do all the post move clean up per consensus. Best regards Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 19:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Princess Isabelle of Orléans-Braganza

You closed the RM as "moved" but you don't seem to have done the move. PamD 23:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the permissions to move the article, but I have requested a technical move (see WP:RMT). This will be done shortly. Vpab15 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It might be more helpful to other editors to say "Move requested as uncontroversial", rather than the confusingly inaccurate statement "Moved". Or drop a note in the talk page of the proposing editor, who is clearly going to have it on their watchlist.  PamD 05:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Or tweak your edit summary to say "move requested" rather than "page moved" in these cases? PamD 05:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, will do that in the future. The article has been moved now. Vpab15 (talk) 11:20, 22 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Northumbria

A minority as it a few hours ago. We're talking about this on the talk page, lets keep it there for simplicity.Halbared (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bourbon Restoration

I have in principle no opinion about Bourbon Restoration but could you please fix the 865 links to this disambiguation page? 1244 links are already fixed (links in templates). Could you fix those 865 soon? The Banner talk 13:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it. I have done most of them but there are a few remaining. Vpab15 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You are doing well, just 63 links left. The Banner talk 20:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! That took longer than I expected but I think all links have been fixed now. Vpab15 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. 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) 06:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Keith Gill (investor)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Keith Gill (investor). 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aston

Please could you reconsider or relist your close at Aston? I don't understand why you would decide to move, when several voters pointed out that the Birmingham area is the only one exclusively known as Aston. The articles should stay as they are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Many other places are known exclusively as Aston, even if their title has a qualifier. In any case, I reopened the RM. Vpab15 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

American Left

You haven't mentioned which category the Left comes under MOS:ISMCAPS. TFD (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Spring Offensive

Where is the requested move? I can't see it at either Talk:Spring Offensive or Talk:Spring offensive. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is at Talk:German_spring_offensive#Requested_move_20_April_2021 Vpab15 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks, didn't think to look there, was confused by the edit summary here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Add other option to move discussion

It may be fruitful to have another option like glacial retreat in the industrial era, as one of the options in the requested move (making clear you added it later), as multiple editors have spoken out in favour and it seems to address the arguments against the initial proposal. Up to you of course. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a fan of that option to be honest. However, shouldn't it be glacial retreat since the industrial era? Industrial era redirects to industrial revolution. It seems the term is a bit ambiguous. Vpab15 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Vpab15. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita RM

Hi, I'm a bit confused about your close of this RM. The nominator and I, who were the only two participants, both indicated a preference for the title Tobacco consumption by country, so why move it to the second choice name of List of countries by tobacco consumption? Colin M (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Colin, List of countries by tobacco consumption is more compliant with WP:LISTNAME so I chose that since that was one of the options discussed even if slightly less preferred than the alternative. Having said that, happy to re-open the RM if you want. Another closer may agree to the alternative title. Vpab15 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see your point of view on this, but I don't think the Tobacco consumption by country title violates any part of the WP:NCLIST guideline (which merely says that it's "common practice" to use a format like "List of __"). But yeah, if you're open to reopening the discussion, I would appreciate that. Colin M (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Chow Hang Tung

may i ask for what reason you moved the page? it does not conform with "policies", "guidelines" or reality. -- RZuo (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There are sources for both names and a majority of editors supported the move. Vpab15 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus is not the result of a vote. a majority of baseless opinions do not prove anything. RZuo (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was clear. You are free to start a WP:Move review if you disagree. For future discussions, I'd suggest you try to be more constructive with your comments. I am referring to the ones in Talk:Chow_Hang-tung. You are more likely to convince others with reasoned and respectful comments rather than with sarcasm. Vpab15 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
because any user careful enough to examine the opinions will soon realise none of the proponents of the move were even factually correct. they were so obviously wrong and irrelevant that they were not expected to withstand analysis and didnt need to be refuted explicitly. if you do not move it back, i suppose you did not care to verify the claims at all. RZuo (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What is factually correct according to you? Vpab15 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

you were supposed to do the analysis when you made a decision.
  1. claim already refuted. ironically, the cited sources use the non-hyphenated form more.
  2. "Wade–Giles system used for the Hong Kong names"
    1. Wade–Giles: "Wade–Giles (/ˌweɪd ˈdʒaɪlz/) is a romanization system for Mandarin Chinese."
    2. Hong Kong name: "Generally, the Cantonese majority employ one or another romanization of Cantonese."
    3. now back to Wade–Giles, there is not a word of "Cantonese" in the whole article, except the header of a sidebar.
  3. "hyphenated form is the standard Hong Kong romanised form".
    1. quote that "standard" please?
    2. what is this "standard" that the subject herself does not use it?
    3. what is this "standard" that so many Category:Hong Kong people do not follow?
now you explain how the move followed Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page. RZuo (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, Cypp0847 provided sources with the hyphen. I have no comment on the other two points. Vpab15 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
lmao this user moves pages without reading the actual article.--RZuo (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Chow Hang Tung

An editor has asked for a Move review of Chow Hang Tung. 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. --RZuo (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

31 July 2021

Hey there, I'm afraid you forgot to move the associated talk page. That is the second time now this happened to a page mover who enforces my RM closures, perhaps I'm doing something wrong; so if you notice anything, please tell me. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Done now. Not sure why it wasn't moved before. Maybe there is some problem with the move functionality. In any case, I don't think it is due to anything you did. Vpab15 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well anyways thanks for fixing it. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gang stalking RM close

Hi, I'm a little confused by your close of this RM. Could you elaborate on how you found a "clean consensus to move" and why you saw "Gang stalking delusion" as having more support than "Gang stalking (delusion)"? On a strictly numerical basis, I see three editors opposing a move, three editors supporting a move to the parenthetical title, and one editor (the nominator) supporting a move to "Gang stalking delusion". PaleoNeonate just says they "support the move", which I guess means the title proposed by the nominator, but it's not entirely clear. As for the strength of policy arguments, I happen to think that it's pretty clear which name WP:COMMONNAME supports, but again, I'd be interested to hear your reading of the the situation. Colin M (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, re-reading the discussion, it is not obvious which of the alternatives has more support. I counted the nom, PaleoNeonate and LuckyLouie as supporting Gang stalking delusion. I only counted the two editors that gave explicit support to Gang stalking (delusion). But I agree you could also argue that LuckyLouie supports the parenthetical option. I don't have a strong preference either way. But I do find the consensus to move the article was clear. If you have a strong preference for the parenthetical option, I don't mind moving it to that title. Vpab15 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I was actually one of the participants who opposed the move. I can accept if consensus is against that view, but I just want to understand what you saw as the policy-based reasons for moving. Most of those supporting the move pointed to a comment from MjolnirPants which said, in part, I've never seen "gang stalking" used to refer to anything but the delusion that one is being stalked by a group. But I don't see how that relates back to any of our WP:CRITERIA. I could just as well say "I've never seen 'Commodore 64' used to refer to anything but a computer", but that doesn't mean we should move that article to "Commodore 64 computer". Colin M (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Two editors mentioned WP:PRECISION as a criterion for the move. Implictly it was also mentioned by the nom as an argument to move to differentiate from the real gang stalking. Vpab15 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't that imply that the article is not the WP:PRIMARY topic for the base name? WP:AT#Disambiguation: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Colin M (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Not really sure about primary topic. That wasn't mentioned in the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think it's ever appropriate for an article to have a title like Foo (bar) while also having the basename Foo redirect to the same page? My understanding (based on the policy I quoted above) is that disambiguation (whether parenthetical or natural) is added only if it's necessary to disambiguate with an existing article - i.e. if the basename either belongs to a different topic, or is a disambiguation page. Colin M (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is appropriate in this case because of the clear consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well I would humbly suggest reopening and relisting the discussion. At the very least, I think we agree that, among those who favour the move, there is not a clear consensus as to which new title they support, and a relist might help address that. (I also happen to think that, at the stage at which the discussion was closed, there was not a policy-based consensus in favour of moving, but obviously we disagree on that part.) Colin M (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I chose the option I thought was best. There was a clear consensus against the previous title. I don't think relisting is going to solve anything. Vpab15 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Gang stalking delusion

An editor has asked for a Move review of Gang stalking delusion. 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. Colin M (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert in Before present

If you don't agree with my edits or their explanations, you are welcome to discuss them at Talk:Before_present#Capitalization. In any case, reverting everything, including legitimate changes per other WP:MOS rules, was not appropriate. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't notice the other changes. I just wanted to revert the bolded name. Sorry about that. Vpab15 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Moves involving primary topics

Hi and thank you for helping with the backlog at RM, that's appreciated. This is just a note that there's often extra work that needs to be done when the move involves a change of primary topic: if a dab page is moved to or away from the primary title, or if one articles displaces another as the primary topic. Most of these are described at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures (these instructions definitely need to be rewritten and updated, but I think they're still useful). In particular, it's necessary to make sure all the relevant articles continue to be accessible to readers (say, via hatnotes), and that the incoming redirects are checked to see if any need retargeting.

For example, when Disappointed was moved to Disappointment (disambiguation) and the redirect retargeted to Disappointment, the following issues arise if there's no further action taken:

  1. The disambiguation page is now inaccessible; to remedy that, a hatnote should be added to the new primary topic (I've done that here [1]);
  2. The redirect Disappointed (song) is now pointing to the primary topic, but it needs to be retargeted to the newly moved dab page [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding also a ping to Jack Frost, who – I now notice – was the editor who closed the RM. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Uanfala. I had an AWB run set to go to fix this and got distracted. That's on me. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Kafka

Sorry, I reverted your changes to English titles only. When that article was improved to Featured article, we decided that he wrote in German, and his titles should be shown as he wrote them, with the common translation (which sadly is often a bad translation). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Franz_Kafka#Titles_in_German. Vpab15 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Negros Island move

Given the number of "opposes" in the discussion of the move of Negros Island, which you closed on 7 September 2021, and the fact that several of them disputed both that Negros Island was the primary target for "Negros", and that "Negros" was explicitly the common name [see, e.g., "Sailing Directions".), I was puzzled by your use of the word consensus. So, I am raising that here to see if we can in fact achieve consensus, or if a move review is necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bejnar, there were 10 supports vs 5 opposes. The main argument for opposing was possible confusion with the nonstandard plural of "negro". However, most editors agreed the island was the primary topic. Regarding common name, only you disagreed that it is not "Negros". Vpab15 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Itchyworms move request

Hi Vpab15, I was looking through recent Tambayan Philippines-related move requests, and saw Talk:The Itchyworms. You closed this as move per "Recent coverage in RS's favours the new name". However, in that discussion, there is only one weak support based on a list of sources which was half non-independent primary sources. The oppose in that discussion cited multiple unrelated RS which did not show a usage of the new name. Given that the sum of the two is more sources showing the old name than the new, I don't see how the determination that coverage favours the new name arose. Thanks for clarification, CMD (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi CMD. The problem with the sources that show the old name is that they are generally older than the ones that use the new name. Vpab15 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Intendant

Now that Intendant was moved to mean something very specific, what can be done to prevent articles which mean the function of Opera manager or Theatre manager - the primary meanings in German - from going to the wrong article? I changed a few manually (example) but have other things to do which seem more urgent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure how to proceed. It in some cases it seems to be used for positions not related to opera, like Tom Buhrow. Vpab15 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Astana

I think, the evidence is pretty obvious: Astana is the more common name. I have to start a move review, in which you are invited to discuss your points of view. But maybe, before that, can you make it clear, what you didnt understand, when you were shown the numbers, in which it is clear, that Astana Has got more mentionings in English language, I'm Just wondering.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No need for a move review, I will reopen the move request to allow other people to participate and I'll let someone else close it. However, if other editors oppose the move and it is closed as "not moved", that means there is no consensus to move and you'll need to respect that. The main problem I see with the evidence you provided, as BilledMammal said Google trends suggests that Astana remains the more common search term, this appears to be tainted, primarily by the tennis open. Meanwhile, a (very brief) review of recent news reports suggests that when it comes to the city, the vast majority of reliable sources use Nur-Sultan, not Astana. I would also add the cycling team Astana–Premier Tech, which appears in the news relatively frequently as well. To prove Astana is the common name, you need to show that it is being used more frequently to refer to the city specifically, not to the cycling team or anything else. Vpab15 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, good..

Well, the numbers for Astana might include the bicycle Team, although maybe not in such a high number, since sources in the Media would not forget about the „Premier“-Part in Astana-Premier.

The same is with Nur-Sultan in the numbers, we added the results with, but also without the hyphen, which also include results for the former president, but, still the numbers for Astana are higher.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ibrahim_al-Maqadma_Mosque_missile_strike

How did you find consensus to move to a title that two people supported? nableezy - 17:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

On a pure head count, there were three editors supporting the previous title vs four supporting a move. But more importantly, no sources were presented to support the previous title, so the conditions for WP:NPOVNAME were not met. Vpab15 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vpab15: out of curiosity, did you count this comment which presented a source against the proposed title? VR talk 16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That comment doesn't mention any sources that refer to the event as a "massacre". Vpab15 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no common name, you switched one POV for another, that's all. The "sides" should have been encouraged to try and find a neutral description.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NDESC explicitly mentions "massacre" as a non-neutral term. I find there is consensus in the discussion that "strike" is a more neutral term. Vpab15 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Strike is the preferred description of one side https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestine-27-years-since-ibrahimi-mosque-massacre/2156877 and https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2014/2/24/remembering-the-ibrahimi-mosque-massacre are both English language sources using the term (apart from the 3 Arabic sources still used to support it as an altname currently), there was no requirement to find sources saying massacre, if I had thought that was necessary, I would have produced some but when you have a UN inquiry essentially concluding it was a war crime, why would it even be necessary? Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The nomination says: Per WP:NPOVNAME, non-neutral names such as "massacre" are only permitted when such a name is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. So yes, you should have provided sources that use "massacre" if you objected to the move. In any case, even considering those sources I am not sure "massacre" would be the WP:COMMONNAME. But that is a different discussion, not the one that was recently closed. I'd suggest to analyse English sources and if a majority of them do use "massacre", a new move request can be made in a few months. Vpab15 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The title we have now is also not NPOV because it is the POV of one side, I suggested something neutral during the discussion but no-one took me up on it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend more time on this but you should recognize that 3 editors (including one who did not "vote") have queried your close here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Vpab15 you said "three editors supporting the previous title vs four supporting a move". That's not correct as no one supported the "massacre" title. The three opposes opposed the proposed title. Selfstudier proposed an alternative title that no one opposed. Its not clear if you saw that proposal as it doesn't figure in your closing summary.VR talk 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
If no one supported "massacre" but they would like some alternative title, a new move request can be created at any time per WP:OTHEROPTIONS. Vpab15 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Based on my reading of WP:OTHEROPTIONS the closer should make clear that there is "no consensus" for any title:

the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen.

If you agree, I'd recommend modifying the closing summary to reflect that.VR talk 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a sensible suggestion. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the closing summary. Vpab15 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this should have been no consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Ancient mountain castle" or "Baekje style mountain castle"

Hello, I didn't notice this discussion was closed on 20 October 2021. If "Ancient mountain castle" sounds too generic then it could be renamed to "Ancient mountain castles in Japan" or "Baekje style mountain castles". These castles were not only inspired by Korean styles, but also Chinese. So the current title is inaccurate. -Artanisen (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on your proposed alternative, but feel free to create a new move request. Vpab15 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

George I closure

Looking over the entire discussion, I think that the proper closure here would be No consensus. Please change your closing to "No consensus". Thank you. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Opposing editors questioned why British monarchs would be primary over those of other countries. Two editors mentioned Greek monarchs. In my opinion those arguments were not addressed so "not moved" is the correct outcome. Vpab15 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. I think there were good arguments made on both sides and the split was very even, which is a classic case of no consensus. Since you will not reconsider your closure, I will be listing this at WP:MOVE REVIEW. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: while I agree that a NC outcome would have been appropriate, apparently MRV is not to be used in these cases. (Though, as you can see from the diff, that wording was only added a couple months ago, and seems to have been done without discussion, so it may be debatable whether it reflects consensus.) Colin M (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Short-faced bear (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Causes of gender incongruence closure

In your closure on choosing gender incongruence over gender dysphoria, your stated reason is that "originally proposed name has more support". But there were 5 editors for gender dysphoria and 5 for gender incongruence. That doesn't appear to be a consensus nor does it seem to be more support for one alternative over the other. I would like you to reopen and relist this discussion to give more time to see if a more clear consensus forms on what the title of the article should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I chose incongruence because more editors seemed opposed to dysphoria than to incongruence. Since a lot of editors accepted both options, I thought that was the best way to determine the consensus. But it was a close call. If you think this is a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I am happy to add that to the closing comment. The last participation in the discussion was 12 days ago, so I don't think reopening would help in this case. Vpab15 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Chatham Island merganser

Hi! Would you kindly undo your close at Talk:Chatham Island merganser#Requested move 29 May 2022, which seems to have been erroneous (and the subsequent move of Mergus milleneri to Chatham Island merganser, of course)? That discussion has only three participants to date apart from the nominator. Dekimasu commented only; the two others are both in opposition, even if one of them is only weakly so. I don't know how you thought that could be interpreted as a consensus to move? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have updated the closing comment in the discussion. There was no consensus: one editor was for the move, one against and one non-committal. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Page move user right revoked

I'm sorry, but your WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close and subsequent move at Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army_war_against_Russian_occupation#Requested_move_26_March_2022 are too subpar for you to retain this user right at this time. I'll add a note of this revocation to the log entry that I'll be drafting momentarily. Thanks. El_C 20:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You revoked my page move user right for a good faith close of a controversial topic. That seems grossly disproportionate. Can I have the user right reinstated? Vpab15 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
No, not at this time. I'm not sure why you were granted this user right in light of that close/move, but you will need to re-apply for it. Or appeal the revocation. El_C 22:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The page mover right was restored per discussion at ANI ([3]). Vpab15 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SW19, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grand Slam and Wimbledon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

SW19

There is still no article named SW19 on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, all the 126 links to disambiguation pages that you have created are pointing to the postal code, not the tournament. But I am cool when you fix all those 126 links.

Ow, and disambiguation pages are meant to distinguish between articles with the same title. This dp fails that point. The Banner talk 12:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a look and fix the links to SW19. Not sure I agree with your statement about dab pages, they exist to help readers when they search for an ambiguous term, which is the exact scenario here. Vpab15 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The Banner talk 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I have triple checked your source. I does NOT refer to the tournament but to the location. The Banner talk 17:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I have added another source. In the future, it would be good if you discuss with other editors your disagreement and give them a chance to reply, rather than just revert their changes. Vpab15 (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of SW19 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SW19 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/SW19 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 until the discussion has finished.

The Banner talk 21:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SW19 (disambiguation)

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

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

A tag has been placed on SW19 (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Vpab15! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 14:32, Wednesday, August 3, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Your contributed article, Eli Lilly (industrialist)

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

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

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Eli Lilly (industrialist). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Eli Lilly (disambiguation). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged 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 Eli Lilly (disambiguation). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

AEIOU

The AEIOU may not be well known in the English-speaking world, but it is certainly very well known in the Catholic world for its association with the Habsburg dynasty. The Casa d'Austria has included South America, Mexico, Naples, Milan, Belgium, Spain and, at times, Portugal. The AEIOU is part of the Casa d'Austria ... So it is clearly world famous. Hendry Duane (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RM close of Python brongersmai

I have a persistent impression that the RM closure at Talk:Python brongersmai was not appropriate. If you look only at the 3:2 ratio of support to opposition, I can see how you would conclude that there was no consensus. However, the two opposing comments seem exceptionally weak to me, as they are not well justified in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RM discussions are not supposed to be votes; rather, they are supposed to weigh the merits of the arguments as well as the numbers. One opponent said the article should have a name that practically no one ever uses, and the other commented about there being "so many common names", despite the fact that I had pointed out that not only do major authorities (The Reptile Database and ITIS) for this species use the proposed name, but that all of the common names listed by those authorities were some minor variation of that proposed name. I had shown statistical evidence for the proposal, but the two who opposed it did not, and they also did not reference any Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support their views. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the discussion was closed a month ago, would it make more sense to start a new discussion in a few weeks, rather than re-open the old one? Happy to re-open if that's what you prefer. I personally do not think there was enough level of consensus, but other closer might feel differently. Vpab15 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I have the impression that resubmitting the same proposal soon could be considered disruptive. Maybe I should just wait six months or something, but I might forget. I found the opposing commentary rather weak to say the least. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ceremonial Counties move request closure

Hello Vpab15!

I've noticed that you recently closed Talk:Ceremonial counties of England#Requested move 6 October 2022. While I feel this was a little early I can live with it, however I was disappinted to see that your only comment when closing the discussion was 'per WP:COMMONNAME'. I would have appreciated a more thorough explanation of your reasoning. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi A.D.Hope. I mentioned COMMONNAME because that was the main opposing argument, with several editors claiming the proposed name is relatively obscure. Vpab15 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning COMMONNAME is all you did, though. It's not a concise explanation of the merits of the supporting and opposing arguments and why you decided in favour of one, which is what I'd expect from a closing statement. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I could have written something longer like "the consensus in the below discussion is that the current title is the COMMONNAME" or something similar. I just think what I wrote conveys the same information in a more succinct way. Vpab15 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
That's still not a very good closing statement. I'm not having a go at you, but it's best to explain how you determined that [x] was the consensus rather than simply stating '[x] is the consensus'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I determined the consensus by reading the discussion. Any other editor can read through it to see what arguments were made. Or read the closing statement which indicates the most relevant argument in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Any editor can read the discussion and draw their own conclusions, but as closer it's your job to summarise your reasoning so that the participants in the discussion can understand why you've decided one way or another. You haven't done that. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving Gonggong, and juggling with articles

Hey Vpab15,

may I ask what your intentions were when you moved around Gonggong and 225088 Gonggong? I am looking at the edit histories and, to be perfectly honest, I don't understand what's going on there. Renerpho (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What was the state before you moved the articles? I am asking because the issue of whether articles on probable dwarf planets should include the number has been somewhat contentious for many years (see here and here, for example). The consensus up to this point seems to be to leave out the numbers in the articles on dwarf planets (Eris, Makemake), sometimes restricted to those on the official IAU list, and include the numbers otherwise (50000 Quaoar, 90482 Orcus, 90377 Sedna). If there has been a discussion on this topic that I have missed, I would like to be aware of that. If there hasn't been a discussion, well, then I'd also like to understand your reason for initiating a move. Renerpho (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Renerpho. I moved GongGong by mistake. I reverted the move when I realised the mistake, so now it is as it was before. I did move Quaoar to remove the number. I don't think that number is very useful for the average reader. I am planning to create a move request to remove the numbers from the remaining dwarf planets. Considering the precedent of Ceres, I hope there will be consensus to move. Vpab15 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15: Would you please move Quaoar back to its previous location as well, until the issue has been discussed? Thank you. Renerpho (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"7 Regional" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 7 Regional and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#7 Regional until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Heinrich Reuss

Just wondering how you got a consensus for a move from a discussion which went in all directions, but where most people opposed a move? Wouldn't it make more sense to close it as "no consensus" but with a recommendation to start a new discussion specifically for the title you suggest, to see if there is actually consensus for that specific version? Fram (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It was definitely a close call. There is some evidence in the discussion that some variant of "Heinrich XIII" is the common name (per robertsky's comment with links to different news pages). Also, on a pure headcount there is slight more support to have "Heinrich XIII" in the title. I think adding that will help achieve a stable title, even if that takes another move request. Vpab15 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lakhnauti move

Hey, sorry 'bout that, I think we just hit the swap buttons at the same time and basically reverted your move. I'll leave you to fix it so I don't accidentally overwrite again. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 16:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it sometimes happens :). Should be ok now. Vpab15 (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal reason indeed valid

Removal of irrelevant information and concision only helps Wikipedia. I’m doing my part, please stop vandalising my valid edits with your harassment. Thank you! 67.8.169.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Andalusi Romance#Requested move 8 February 2023

You need to give an explanation in a close like this. Srnec (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have added a closing comment. Vpab15 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop changing Arakanese Language to Rakhine as just uses

Then u should change the into Burmese language to Bamar language. Ryrusnsnam (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Vpab15 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ryrusnsnam, see Talk:Rakhine language#Requested move 27 January 2023. It appears that the term "Rakhine" was weakly preferred there over "Arakanese". – Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Birkenhead Sch00l

The school describes itself as independent. I think that is sufficient justification for my reversion. I gave a reason for my reversion. You did not give a reason for yours. Discussion is always better tha edit warring. JMcC (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I updated it since the consensus is that "private school" is the preferred term. See Talk:Private_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move_27_January_2023. Vpab15 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
From the history it looks like I reverted your edit, but that wasn't intentional. I ran an WP:AWB script to update the link after the move. Vpab15 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood

Please DON'T do undiscussed moves on important pages. It can be a nuisance reverting them. Do a proper WP:RM discussion first, and check the talk page for previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I decided to boldly move the article to the more common ([4]) and concise title. I am happy to create a RM if you want to revert the move, but I do think the current name is better and the RM will eventually result on it being moved anyway. Vpab15 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes that's what you should not do! Have you read the talk page? a) An alternative title may be favoured and b) Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and Pre-Raphaelites are not the same thing. So yes please revert if you can. I tried & couldn't. What a pain! Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Welsh valleys

Hello, Vpab15

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Fork99 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Welsh valleys, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Welsh valleys.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Fork99}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Fork99 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, I’ve just sent it to WP:RfD because I thought it was a little vague and might need disambiguation. Please feel free to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30#Welsh valleys. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Spiritism

Thanks for the move of Spiritism. But I hope you can finish up the move by solving the 519 links to disambiguation pages (6 templates) that are created with the move. I have no idea how many other links to disambiguation pages there are outside the templates, but please...?? The Banner talk 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I have updated those to link to Kardecist spiritism instead. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

2018–2019 Gaza border protests

Hello, thanks for taking the time to review this move discussion.

Can you please elaborate what you meant with "no consensus"? [5]

WP:RMCIDC elaborates that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. ".

Most of the opposing votes were not based on any policy guideline, therefore, consensus does not involve such WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. WP:COMMONNAME is clear in saying that common names override neutrality concerns, and not "which one is more neutral".

I am writing you here per WP:IMR: " Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The two main policies mentioned were WP:POVNAME and COMMONNAME. The WP:BURDEN is on the supporters to provide evidence their preferred title better satisfies those policies. In my opinion that was not achieved. The evidence provided was questioned. Opposers claimed the sources provided were cherry-picked and didn't prove the proposed title was the common name. They also questioned the supposed non-neutrality of the current title, saying it was a neutral descriptive title and the proposed title was not neutral. Vpab15 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:POVNAME: "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Can you elaborate how this violates the policy?
The burden of verifiability has been achieved as demonstrated by the analysis of 40 high quality reliable sources using the term. The claims that the sources were cherry-picked were refuted by the argument that these articles were newer, which aligns with WP:NPOVNAME which gives an exception for: "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later".
The opposers to the move then could not provide any further arguments to support their position based on WP policy. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Already explained my reading of the discussion, I don't have much more to add I am afraid. Vpab15 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
And the point that the cherrypicking claims were refuted by the newer articles published and according to the NPOVNAME guideline which explicitly names this specific case? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Move review for 2018–2019 Gaza border protests

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Irish hunger strike

Hi,

Regarding your closure of the requested move here, could you provide a summary of your thinking? Would you consider relisting the move request to allow other editors more time to comment? Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have updated the closing comment. There was no support for the move, it would be quite hard for the outcome to change even if the discussion is relisted. Vpab15 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, although I would have thought the very strong imbalance in page views would carry more weight. I guess I'll let it go. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I've decided to request a move review. Please see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Close clarification

Thanks for closing. Regarding the consensus to merge, I wonder if you saw this discussion? — xDanielx T/C\R 22:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I have now amended my close and liked the previous merge discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vpab15/Archive_1&oldid=1261846832"