Wikipedia talk:Page-move war

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Suggestions

Perhaps it should have more instructions for ordinary users who might be involved in such move wars. It seems aimed only at administrators. Also, it could say something about discussing the matter with the users and persuading them to stop, etc.; and it could say something about where to ask for page protection (WP:RFPP), etc. in case non-admins are reading it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else did that. -- IRP ☎ 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well done expanding the page, 59.95.104.122! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I suggest listing the page at WP:RfC, in the part about policy and guideline proposals. Unless you want to make it an essay. Also, putting links to it in the "see also" sections of a few related pages such as WP:Edit war. Let me know if you need help with that. Except that I'm going on wikibreak for a few days. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. I'm not sure if I did it correctly though. -- IRP ☎ 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Requesting that this be expanded and made a policy

This looks like an essay to me. Alternatively it could be merged into Wikipedia:Edit war. There is no need for a seperate policy or guideline on edit warring through page moves. The problems and solutions are almost identical. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a paragraph on the particular problems of page move warring into WP:EDITWAR#What is wrong with edit warring?. Rd232 ^talk 04:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of auto-confirmed status

There seems to be some confusion about whether it's possible for an administrator to revoke auto-confirmed status from people move warring. It's not really possible. There is only one way to do it - to set the Abuse filter to automatically revoke auto-confirmed status from anyone attempting to move the page in question. This is not a realistic option; administrators are going to fully protect the page from moves instead. Any such filter is likely to be quickly deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this post. -- IRP ☎ 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!

I wish to move that the article Thesis (as now is) NOT continue to be the target of redirection from Thesis (academic document). So, how do I do this?
Naturally (?) I began by starting a discussion on the Talk Page detailing my reasoning. After this I looked for a template to add to the top of the article to announce the proposal, something similar in style to those for a merge proposal. However what should be a simple process of reverting the article to its previous title (and realigning it to common usage - see Talk Page) appears to be labyrinthine. Besides this (helpful) article on Move Wars there is an impenetrable tangle of pages and instructions and templates and processes and procedures and more. There surely must be a simple way to effect my proposed "move". On another page I contribute to such a move was accomplished, by others, without any of the bureaucracy I am faced with, and in a matter of two days!! In addition to the semantic and taxonomic rational of the move proposal I am making it would also help to reduce the redirection-tangle described here - and yet I am at a loss to know how to SIMPLY achieve it! Lastly I have to add that this account seems to me yet another example of the increasingly counter-productive nature of Wikipedia guidance. Far from facilitating good editorial practice, by being so impossible to adhere to it actually encourages editors to adopt work-arounds. I don't want to follow suit, but trumping this good intention I simply do not have time to untangle the existing maze of guidance nor to take part in the convoluted processes that seem to be being describe. It appears that I must simply accept defeat and once more stand by while Wikipedia gently and softly decays. Would LOVE to be shown the error of this conclusion. LookingGlass (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.111kab.com/webviewPage

00923472829741 172.99.189.211 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]