User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Clarification needed

In regards to this close, the version in which there was unanimous agreement to remove was this version, I've trimmed it down to this version during the close which there was complete agreement for. I do not agree with the further trimming which took place after your close. There are reliable sources for rankings RedBull which passes WP:VGRS, in fact RedBull has individual pages dedicated to the top ten rankings, there was a discussion to trim the power rankings to top ten, but no agreement for complete removal. Which version did you intend? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Valoem: Thanks for your message. (Clarification -) My close was based on the consensus to remove the unsourced lists. The RFC was only about the unsourced content to the best of my knowledge and there was a general agreement to remove those lists at least until reliable sourcing could be established. The rest of the article shall remain unaffected by the close. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay to reestablish this version? Those lists are sourced. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Valoem I have left a clarification at the RFC close itself. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with sourced information being added back. You might want to discuss it on the talk page first (especially regarding WP:RS since these are grey areas). Just discuss it first to avoid an edit war. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"No consensus" closure of Lucas Roberts -> Lucas Horton move request

Hello. I am opening a conversation with you as is required prior to initiating a move review on your "no consensus" closure of the above move-request.

First I would like to remind you of this policy at WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure: "Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." As you have decided there was "no consensus" I must assume that you thought the debate was unresolved! So ... I wonder why did you,as a non-admin, decided to close the request, rather than say re-list it (or leave it to an admin), given that caution is explicitly recommended for non-admins in this situation?

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention this policy WP:CLOSE#How to determine the outcome which states: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." (my emphasis). I wonder why, despite policy explicitly requiring caution, did you not act in the recommended good manner and "transparently explain" how your decision was reached, but rather gave no explanation at all! Given the time and effort put into the request by the nominator, do you not think that time and consideration should have been given in both making and explaining the decision that you took it on yourself to make?

Thirdly, and most importantly for establishing how to proceed regarding the situation at Lucas Roberts, I would like to ask you how you evaluated the arguments for and against to determine "no consensus", in the light of this policy at WP:RMCI#Three_possible_outcomes, which says "no consensus" is indicated when "equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides".

Specifically, in order to know how to proceed with the unsatisfactory situation an Lucas Roberts, please can you explain the following: As there were three votes for the move (including the nominator), and only two votes opposing the move, can you state what arguments by the two opposers you found had "equal weight" to all the arguments, evidence, and logic presented in the request (and its defense) that enabled you to arrive at the conclusion of "no consensus".

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. @Born2Cycle: @TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aliveness Cascade: Thanks for your message. A talkback to the message on the article talk would've worked as well. I've replied at the article talk itself. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the move request. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Dhanania, to me, you were correct to close the matter as no consensus, and was apparently pressured into moving it. Given what was stated above and on the talk page, and the fact that you are a very new editor, I feel that more experienced editors need to assess this issue, which is why I will be listing this in a WP:Close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See the move review. As noted there, I listed the matter there because you gave no valid reason for moving the article. It seems you simply bought into everything that Aliveness Cascade stated and moved the article. Looking at this, above, and below on your talk page, you seem to need more experience with closing RfCs. I'm not confident that you are familiar enough with the process. Right now, it seems to me that you will change your mind after any close if someone complains. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hindko: no consensus?

Hi and thank you for having the courage to close an RM that everyone else had shied away from closing for so long. However, I'm confused with the outcome. Of course, "no consensus" seems reasonable if we only count the votes (2 for, 2 against). But this would imply that you gave all the !votes equal weight. I'm not sure I understand how that could happen. Do you think the first opposer's challenge to the consensus for the status of primary topic was cogent? Do you see any relevance to my argument for the move in the second opposer's finding of a single source that refers to Hindko as a dialect? You say in your close that we run into the same problems as the previous RM. What are these problems? I thought I had explained how the situation is different now and how the previous close's rationales do not apply anymore. Did you find any flaws in that reasoning? – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks for your message. Is it fine if I check on this today evening (IST) when I'm at my computer? Also, a link to the talk page/article would really help as well. I'm sorry for the trouble, there's no need to file a formal move review. I was closing some silly RMs yesterday and might have made a mistake in deciding the consensus. I'll have a look again and will change my close if necessary. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've forgotten the link, here it is: Talk:Hindko dialects#Requested move 7 May 2017. Take your time, there's no rush. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan_Dhanania Thank you for having the courage to close an a useless RM. However, You must have stood by your action. This user Uanfala has turned crazy since 12 October 2016. A typical Gora who wants to make English as number one Language and divide others specially Indian Languages in to small languages. He had been Forum shopping to get Punjabi dialects Saraiki Hindko & Pothwari as separate language. 10 RMs 4 Move reviews 2 DRs 1 Arbitration and Talk page discussion with LIFE TIME GOAL or mental sickness.

Basically Linguistic is only for a reason. That basic reason is to distinguish between A B C D E F G.....where a lay man person X is told that E and F are sub dialects of D dialect of C language which belongs to B language Family that originated from A proto language. G is not related to B family. In this way he can understand the short cut to learn that language.

However Mr. Uanfala wants to destroy those links just to win a war he started. Shame less non professional attitude. GOD HELPS but please restore your decision to discourage this non sense user. Regards 39.60.135.36 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for re-opening the discussion, Yashovardhan Dhanania. Just leaving a note that when evaluating the contributions of IPs (or newly registered accounts) in any discussions that might have to do with Punjabi, Saraiki, Pothwari or Hindko, you might want to be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive. – Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That sockmaster has a particular penchant for impersonating other editors: [1]. I'm removing that now. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your move of "Triviality (mathematics)" to "Trivial (mathematics)"

I nominated to move "Triviality (mathematics)" to "Triviality", but you moved it to "Trivial (mathematics)" without any explanation. Moving to "Trivial (mathematics)" is supported only by Laurdecl, and opposed by both me and A L T E R C A R I  ✍. The support of A L T E R C A R I  ✍ is in moving to "Triviality" not "Trivial (mathematics)". Thus far only these three people have commented on this move request.

Please explain or revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeT RiGhT (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing of Greek mythology pages

How can I join the Greek mythology project to better enhance the said pages?--Markx121993 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Markx121993:, sorry for my late reply. Was kinda busy even though I'd seen your message. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Greek mythology and join the project there. The project doesn't seem much active though. Let me know if you need any more help. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Matla Setu

Sri, Yashovardhan Dhanania

My new article Matla Bridge are completed . Take a look at some time. I think after that the page will take out the tags. Thanks. Shuvendu (শুভেন্দু) , talk page —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@খাঁ শুভেন্দু: Thanks for your message! I removed a couple of tags. I still believe that the article could see expansion so I have not removed the stub tag yet. Next time, you can remove relevant tags yourself if you think the issue is fixed. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

TFD

Just so you know, it hasn't been a full week for those template discussions you closed. When in doubt, check Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. If there are no templates there, then nothing needs closing. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Oops! A big one here. I am so sorry for the mess I created. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world, just thought you should know. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Thanks! Will take care next time... I just seem to keep getting into messes, one after the other. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

International Board Game Studies Association

Hi

You suggested I open a discussion here, presumably regarding references and notability in the draft you deem lacks "notability".

If you look at the article again you'll see there are now several additional references establishing notability; these include discussion in a monograph; an article in an international newspaper (Der Spiegel) and a regional television news item broadcast on a commercial television network in the UK.

Hopefully, these additional references will suffice to meet the "notability" criteria, viz. "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them)".

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.20.170 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for prompt review of my newly created article. Yavarai (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yashovardhan, Thanks for your suggestions regarding my article Ratnakar Mishra. It will get developed in a nice way within a week. --Yavarai (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

Hey Yavarai, thanks for the kind words. Do let me know if you need any help. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)