User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 16

898:

few that have disagreed with me in the past, or recently. It is simply not fair to hold someone to standards that nobody else is expected to meet, and holding me to such imaginary standards is the only way they can "get me". Please do not join them in that effort. I get the whole perception thing, but trying to appease those who are convinced I'm a "net negative" is unlikely to make any difference, no matter what I do or not do. That said, please do not take this as a lack of appreciation for your efforts to observe my behavior and give me feedback. I do appreciate that and am not asking you to stop, if that's what you wish to do. What I don't appreciate, however, from anyone, is being asked to abide by rules nobody else is expected to follow. I'm far from perfect, but nobody else is perfect either. My offer to abide by a special rule (limit the number of edits in RM discussions to a specific number) was made in a particular situation in which I had been put in a corner in a process that a certain someone has characterized as me "being railroaded", and was made out of desperation (but genuinely) to avoid being blocked. However, that offer was rejected by the railroaders. I still generally intend to abide by it in spirit, but certain discussions tend to develop in ways in which more participation is warranted - and that's how plenty of editors behave, usually without any problems or issues. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, okay? I'm open to further advice, suggestions, as always, especially if you (or anyone) thinks I'm still not "getting it". Just wanted be open about where my thinking is. Thanks again. --

605:

interesting, and so distracting). Even simple questions of precedents and obvious answers on page moves, not easily found in documentation, could be attended to by those using the forum. There is a twist in my proposal, if it is not a new one, that would see similar attempts at forums fall in on itself, the centralized page needs an experienced user able to sustain their interest in the topic, suffer occasional discordant digressions, moderate the contributors with notes on relevance and offers of disinvitation to those who make it personal or create disruption. That user would be elevated by appointment within the community, a sort of Czar of process, an office that announces or reiterates its position but does not overtly enter itself to any single discussion. Such a page could also serve as an alternative to dispute resolution, and actually resolve disputes, who know?! :-) The forum can be broad in its input, but with the consistency of one invested with the role of maintaining the quality and value of the generalised talk page. You, of course, would choose the name of the page, and you would have my earnest and sincere support. If you are able to fathom what I envisage, sorry if I am not making sense: I hope you will see I'm proposing this as a means of realising a

915:, one more thing, in the real world, a key characteristic of our justice system is that jurors don't personally know the accused. I mean, Rand Paul doesn't get to be on the jury of the neighbor who body slammed him. Jayme Closs won't get to be on Jake Patterson's jury, of course (and not just because of her age). But here on WP, while I don't have a problem with involved editors making an AN/I, AE, etc. case against another editor, and "testifying" about their experience with the accused, it seems to me that only editors previously uninvolved with the accused editor (and, ideally, with the accuser(s)) should be able to !vote about whether there is actual wrongdoing by the accused and what, if anything, the "sentence" should be. There should also be consequences for bringing frivolous charges to these forums. Maybe there could be a jury pool from which say 6 jurors are selected, vetted by the accusers and accused to ensure both sides agree they are uninvolved/unbiased, and then go from there? Any idea why it doesn't work like that? Do you agree it should? -- 578:

keen interest in article titles (per my user page and FAQ), an area teeming with disagreement and dispute. All that adds up to me being in many more disputes than most, and so I have accumulated a significant number of fellow editors with whom I've been in heated disputes, and who are biased against me per human nature as I described above. So four people might be in a heated debate, as I was in recently in MRV, and I'm the one with the 2nd most edits (see the table posted in the AN/I), but only a few more than the one in 3rd place, but I'm the one who is singled out for exhibiting problematic behavior. I don't mean to excuse my behavior, I'm just saying that most others are not taken to AN/I for behavior that I am taken there for, repeatedly. This particular AN/I is a great example of that. I'm still waiting to hear exactly what I did at

726:

spent to the limit. When they go too far into deficit, bad things usually happen. I suggest focusing on building back your "goodwill-Mario-capital" by making more contributions that are near-universally approved of (not controversial) and then later you can maybe you can try to make more yogurt without spilling any milk. And really, for that Polish train RM, if someone asks you to reopen something like that, you should just reopen it. Something like that is just not worth wasting goodwill on. They shouldn't really have bugged you to reopen it either, but you need to realize that when you choose to do administrator things, you need to maintain the decorum expected of administrators. Sometimes that means rolling over and accepting requests you feel are unreasonable as long as they're just moderately unreasonable not over-blatantly unreasonable.

490:. I am still meaning to seek to get WP:RMNAC harmonized with WP:NAC; I think you have been served poorly by the loose writing of RMNAC. Also repeating: you tend to over-weight letter-of-policy-and-guideline and underweight less-well-documented stuff. No, I won't substantiate that. A tool to count disputed closes could be nice. Attention has been drawn to you and so many people are looking. It is entirely possible others are doing worse. I could, but won't, start naming possibilities. You have a reputation, and I am not a big factor in it. My advice has not always been perfect. I advised you to go to WP:Editor review, and you did, and it turned into a pile on for people to repeat what they didn't like, and then WP:Editor review was shut down. So, tentatively, I give this new advice: Ask for for mentoring from 4710:, when that wasn't reflected by the evidence, nor the votes. A move review for that request currently has three votes, all in favour of reopening/relisting. When I asked them to explain their reasoning in detail, they said that they were Bengali, therefore they knew what Sinhala is called in English by comparison (i.e. their decision was based on their own opinion, not the evidence presented). They claim to have a near-native level of English (en-4) on their user page, but I would rate them as en-2 (intermediate) based on the number and frequency of basic errors in their English. I think they have grossly overestimated their English skills and impartial decision making ability. Being a Bengalese national neither automatically makes you an expert in a neighbouring country, nor in English. 1502:

listen and perform well. Think of being an RM-administrator as something like a quarterback. Your goal is to improve your "quarterback rating". Successfully closed RMs, which nobody objects to, are like completed passes; they increase your rating. Editors complaining on your talk page are like incomplete passes. Being taken to Move Review is like a pass that is almost intercepted, having your close overturned at Move Review, that's a "pick 6". Really bad for your rating. You can also improve your rating by successfully closing some of the more tricky RMs like those that change a primary-topic, which often means cleaning up links and hatnotes. There can be a lot of post-move cleanup work that a lot of closers miss doing; this stuff is in the detailed

6756:

readers (and editors) would benefit from having the DAB at the base name so I see consensus for the move and clearly no consensus to ignore the guideline. In addition I'd actually note that 9 editors (including the nom) were in favour of the move but only 4 were against it. We could discount the IP who didn't give a reason and SmokeyJoe who disagreed with the titles of DAB pages in general, in which case we have 8:3. I would agree with SmokeyJoe and Amakuru that you are involved and have clearly voiced opinions on similar ones but with a reasonable consensus and the RM having been open for 6 weeks I don't see a huge problem with the close. Had B2C !voted instead then I bet someone else would have closed it in favour of a move anyway.

3928:'s pointless, comment-free relisting also irks. It is a weird process that seems to exist for no purpose. Buy relisting, there is a small effect of claim to hold some authority. A little bit of a supervisor is watching. If you don't get it, why not just trust. You have previously, from very long ago, had the habit to of relisting an RM while casting you first !vote. It is very easy to read that action as an attempt to prevent an immediate subsequent close, give your own !vote more visibility, and at the top of the RM queue. Deliberate, or unconscious bias, it doesn't matter. In fact, I am quite sure your honest belief twas that you !vote was worthy and interesting for every previous !vote to re-read. 3364:, any closure of a move request should be performed by an uninvolved and impartial editor — one who "doesn't have a horse in the race", so to speak. In general I don't think this is a difficult standard... but in your case I feel like it is. The fact that you've committed yourself to affecting Knowledge's titling and title policy, and that you've done so with great volume and persistence across so many forums, and that you've advocated in such a remarkably outspoken and often disruptive manner for your own particular interpretations of title policy (which are often at odds with community consensus), all create a unique problem: it's difficult to see you as neutral when it comes to nearly any move request. 1872:

want to put it; I just said it in several ways, and there are plenty of links in the ANI thread. As for when it has recently occurred, several participants noted that your behavior at the ANI report itself constituted problematic discussion. You made comments at the ANI thread suggesting that such behavior harms only your own argument and shouldn't be prohibited by policy; others responded that your comments take time for others to read and respond to. It was also suggested that you might fare better with an objective standard to measure your comments; tracking the length of your discussion comments and limiting yourself to a specified number of words was suggested as a possible step going forward.

342:("prosthesis" is probably trying to say "renovation"). We do have bilingual Wikipedians who might be able to help; one of them is on the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. As this has now been nominated for deletion, it would be a terrible waste of editor time to litigate this at Move Review. Move review should be saved for more controversial decisions where there has been extensive discussion and disagreement, it shouldn't be used for relatively trivial matters like this. We don't need English-language sources to demonstrate notability; foreign-language reliable sources may be translated. A high-speed rail link between two major Polish cities seems notable to me. 839:. I’m not fond of his unilateral moves; he’s not fond of my reverts of them and has asked me to stop “stalking” him. Suggestions? Or maybe I was looking at the new page creation log. I look at that log from time to time, as well as users’ histories. I remember in this case wherever I saw it, the disambiguation of such an unusual name caught my eye, so I checked the base name and found it to be unoccupied - not even a redirect there. Hence the move. Later it was reverted to create the fable at the basename. I’m still not convinced it shouldn’t be the other way around since it seems the opera is better known and more likely to be sought. But I dropped that stick... — 1914:, without disagreeing with you, Kevin, can I point out in your decision and wording, on behalf of what you term 'the community', the warning is specific to В²C and that may have an affect on the user's ability to contribute. And perhaps this is intended, to address any substantive critique, but will it have unintended consequences? If it were not this gentleman, I suspect another would be cast down as a The Community's pariah, a community that includes users who are famously excessive in discussion, disruptive, calling people nazis and lacking any decorum in interactions. And that is just some of the admins ;-) A pile-on of users thought something 5993:

and in Spanish to boot), to demonstrate notability. I'm not going to !vote in the Carter DRV (if I did, I would vote draftify based on the one GNG source I've seen so far, the Marie Claire profile), but thought this might help. If you have one or two other examples like the Marie Clarie profile, but from different time periods, that might convince DRV voters to RESTORE in that DRV, but if you don't, it could be refunded to draft until either you or someone else finds such sources, or new sources are written (which is very possible/likely, I think). (And I'd guess the original AfD closer would REFUND to draft on request.) Cheers!

8220: 4002:

subtly nuanced. Multiple people tell you to ease of relisting? Just do it. Claiming you don't understand, and demanding objective evidence for subjective things, that is not productive for you in getting on with half of the community. Whenever you feel "I still don't get", my automatic advice to you is "just trust their advice". Ease off relisting. Don't relist if you have or might !vote. If you do relist, include a statement on the reason for the relist such as a refocusing statement or a call on the what are the current leading arguments of opposing sides. Treat relisting exactly as closing. --

2611:

for such a situation, reading consensus as best as I could. I’m not sure how closely you looked st that, but I get the sense it wasn’t very closely. Unfortunately I also made two typo/technical errors which I immediately corrected when they were brought to my attention. But I don’t see how all of this adds up to demonstrating there is a problem with me continuing to close RMs. None of my closes have ever been taken to MR. Please, look at my record of closes, compare to that of other closers, and explain to me the problem you see and reason you believe I should stop helping out with the RM backlog. —

8129: 1474:

have high standards for admins and a shortage of admins helping in this area (leading to backlogs) we have compromised standards to allow page-movers to help. The longer and more detailed the docmentation becomes, the more casual participants tire of reading it. Then they want a "readers' digest" version of the instructions. Even if you put something in written instructions, editors may think they know how to do it, and dive in without reading the instructions and make mistakes. Sometimes you have to ask them to read the instructions twice, or heaven forbid, even more times than that.

5233:, you crossed the supervote line by adding your personal unjustified opinion that a new RM using ranked would be a good idea. There is no indication of a good reason to move from the status quo, there is an ugly history or s8milar RMs for that article, and Inhave explained to you at WT:RM why ranked voting is contrary to consensus decision making. Your inability to understand objections to your new ideas for algorithmic solutions is not my problem but yours. If you can’t understand, you should slow down on pushing theories, definitely not push them into your closing statements. — 10156:. Frankly, that makes no sense. In any case, I don't see anything in SMALLDETAILS that says that, or even implies it. More importantly, you were the only one who expressed this viewpoint ("you generally can't rely on the absence of it") in the discussion. The only other Support didn't mention it and didn't even say "per Crouch, Swale", or imply agreement in any way on that particular (and peculiar) point. So, no, I won't change to "no consensus". As I said in the close, I see consensus against the move in that discussion. Oppose was grounded in policy. Support was not, at all. -- 1931:, well, before I close any RM discussion in which there is some local consensus, I do make sure the consensus at that point is based on something reasonable, whether I agree with it or not. If I think the local consensus is not reasonable, or perhaps contrary to community consensus as reflected in policy, then instead of closing, I participate. So when you close finding consensus, I think you should at least agree the consensus is reasonable, and can explain it. If RM discussion closures can be held to that standard, I certainly hope ANI ones are too. -- 3858:

outcome that is neither "consensus to move" nor "consensus not to move". "No consensus" doesn't usually mean keeping the discussion open longer would result in a consensus, and I think keeping a clear "no consensus" discussion open longer is a net negative not because there will be more entries in the backlog, but because editors have a finite amount of energy for RM participation. Closing discussions that have a clear lack of consensus either way allows discussions that would benefit from further participation to be more prominent on the RM page.

187:. While I can see how someone with your confirmation bias about me might think I crossed the line, I know what was in my mind and what I intended to convey with those words, and I am confident I did not cross the line. You also repeatedly refer to this supposed obligation of the closer to "summarize the discussion", yet that is commonly not done, but I have little doubt I'm the only one who gets flack from you for not doing so. Anyone, unless someone without a history of disagreement complains about that close here, I say again: take it to 10264:

sometimes call the Beatles album "Foo!" however the Beatles album would need to be completely disambiguated unless it was shown to be primary over the Pixies album. We shouldn't disambiguatie titles unnecessarily just to provide clarify but we do need to if ambiguous for a different title. Yes the pageview stats show 25,506 for the 2005 film v 1,095 for the 1962 film and 1,063 for the 1929 film but is that enough for a consensus against what is likely partial disambiguation which the community consensus is that the bar is much higher for?

4907:

common name of this plant in the industry. I have attached links to seven different produce companies (nationally and internationally) who use different brand names for the product/vegetable, which they all call baby broccoli, along with other third party links referencing the generic name baby broccoli. Given this evidence, would you consider amending your closure of the request move discussion. I hope this is the right place to insert links. Please let me know if you do not see the links or this is incorrect forum for discussion.

381:

article than I to dig up any relevant English RS to help not only with the title, but also with the references in the article content for the purpose of verifying notability in an English encyclopedia. I think a new RM is a good idea, but I urge anyone starting one to first find appropriate English RS to support a new title. Otherwise, like the notice on the article page notes, and my comment in the close reiterates, without basis in English RS, the article's notability is to be questioned, and may lead to deletion. --

1053:, with an edit summary advising to use the right template next time. No big deal. How I fix it is a bit of a trade secret, but it's something anyone can do if they know what they're doing. It would be nice to have more help fixing these malformed requests because I can't always be patrolling for them. I kind of expect anyone who positions themselves as a sort of RM expert and hall monitor to be able to do this. The secret is to not trust yourself to be able to manually refactor the request, but rather to use {{ 7167: 1030:}} to submit RMs for a reason. That template calls a module that does a bunch of error-checking for bad or missing parameters, syntax or template placement to ensure that the syntax of the RM is formatted in the standard way that the bot expects to find it. It's frustrating when editors use the /dated template directly, or incorrectly refactor RMs after-the-fact. I keep needing to make changes to the bot so it handles these refactorings in a more optimal way, as more unexpected refactorings happen. 3211:

that any admin will be familiar with - which is that when you close a request like that, someone will complain that you're wrong, biased, idiotic or whatever. Now for most admins we're used to this, and it isn't a problem. But if B2C does it, someone who disagrees with the close is inevitably going to say "ah, that's B2C, he's had some issues recently with move requests, so I'm going to post at AN/ANI" ... you get the idea. B2C, just keep it to obvious and simple closes, and all will be good.

5914:) and FAQ so I would expect it would anyway matter to you. TITLECHANGES says that controversial titles should not be changed without discussion and that they should be discussed at RM. There was a good reason (and IMO still is) due to the COMMONNAME and NATURAL arguments. In the UK commas for churches (and possibly streets) might be natural disambiguation but otherwise it just reflects the location of the place. When the location is common use then the comma tends to be omitted in cases such as 5334: 4381:

the amount of use from the term "Settle" would still be greater than the town. Unlike both "Freston" and "Unlikely" there are a number of full matches so that could just push us into DAB territory. A agree with the points of Obama and Trump, Barrack is the clear PT since he is someone commonly known by his last name. However with Trump both the card game and president are likely and have long-term significance so a DAB is best there (especially considering the large number of other uses). Views

31: 2980:

failed to gain any sort of consensus, so quite why you think he should therefore voluntarily absent himself from that area is a mystery. The vast majority of his closes are uncontroversial and useful, and he has always shown himself far more willing than most to reverse closes where they are challenged. So honestly, cygnis and JzG, I bear you no ill will but personally I think you should just drop this now. If you can't get along with B2C then just try to stay out of his way. Thanks —

5304: 3525: 2559: 6175:

Nothing is broken. Users are unharmed. The articles that link to the series are almost all about people associated with the series (actors, writers, directors, producers), are season or episode articles, are about music used in the series, or are award related. In all of the cases I’ve seen so far the context around the link clearly identifies the subject; the additional “2013 TV series” hoverlink data is superfluous and not even visible on mobile browsers anyway.

3849:

was capable of closing the discussion–i.e. hadn't participated at the time. From time to time I have seen editors !vote a few days after relisting a sparsely attended discussion, or something like that. But I don't think I have ever seen relisting and a !vote in the same comment from an experienced editor; and we definitely don't want to see that sort of practice spread to unexperienced editors relisting their own requests, etc. Something like the relisting at

3696:(ec) "only reason", BD2412? You think an INVOLVED editor can freely relist? You don't think relisting carries any implied appeal to authority that can impact the continued discussion? I most definitely disagree back. For sparse participation? Sitting at the tail of backlog attracts more attention that being reshuffled into the mix. I trust you are only disagreeing with me, and not with Dekimasu's request to avoid being both a relister and a !voter? -- 1232: 7490:, look at all uses on the surname’s dab page. If the page counts for the person in question meets primary topic usage criteria relative to the other uses, and there are considerable references (not necessarily first references) in RS to the person by surname only, then it’s the primary topic. If not, then not. By that standard the current president is probably the PT for Trump, and would be a primary redirect, if people could be objective about him. —- 10868: 9378: 8829: 8041: 6930: 6690:. The supporters of the move did not make such a case, they simply blindly cited DIFFCAPS, without explaining why readers might benefit or why the usual conventions regarding redirects would not apply to this. Your arguments in the other debate suggest you have very strong views on this, so I suggest you frame your arguments here as a vote in the debate rather than a close, because it is a poor close and a misreading of the debate as it stands. — 3877:. I still don't see the harm in anyone of any level of experience relisting an elapsed "no consensus" RM discussion for any or no reason. If an RM I already participated in is relisted, I know I already weighed in when I see it in the list, and I can sneak a peak at status, possibly weigh in with a follow-up comment, or easily ignore it altogether. It's up to me how much it affects the total time I spend on RM - I just don't see it as a hindrance. 7544:? We have no tools to be objective about that. When a task like that is so difficult and without objective evidence, that inevitable leads to people voting on gut instinct or personal subjective preference - a problem that is amplified greatly when its about biographies. A simple, straightforward deprecation would eliminate these RM discussions and lead to a consistent handling of surnames and improve first mention handling in our articles per 486:(ec) You pinged me, so I guess I am re-invited to post in this thread? It's my opinion, I have not kept or compiled a list of evidence. I am in fact a major author of the text at WP:POLEMIC, "Do not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason". In formal discussions I will repeat my opinion. As you asked, I would repeat my advice to you to conservatively follow the very good advice at 10079:, without consideration for what does or does not meet some hurdle specified in that guideline. Furthermore, I clarified: "But that’s perfectly acceptable unless there is evidence of considerable confusion. But opposition cited page views showing that’s not the case." That's a reference to the page views evidence which, again, makes all the discussion about details, SMALL or small, moot. The bottom line is that anyone looking for 251:

one's opinion as justification for a conclusion versus offering one's opinion to justify a close which does not actually reflect the consensus, and it's obvious to me that B²C's closing comment is an example of the first thing, not the second. I suggest dropping this, or if you have new information that might change the outcome of the discussion, add it to your move review request and let it be considered by neutral observers.

3357:) recent move-related incident related to you at ANI, I felt I should come here to suggest that you refrain from performing move request closures, but I see that that discussion has already been started above by other editors — a fact that reinforces my belief that this is something you should consider seriously. By this point the reasons should be clear, but in case they're not, I'll describe a couple as I see them: 6191:“more difficult to read in page source form” is putting editor convenience over readers. The piping makes for hovertext that helps with the ambiguous title. You know, this really means the retitling, to the ambiguous title, was a bad idea. I think you don’t care much for readers, just for your convoluted titling theory that in no part is better for readers. In short, the whole exercise is degrading the product. — 7913: 10251:. And, for the third or fourth time, the unchallenged pageviews data presented in the discussion established primary topic in this case: this film is much more likely than any other film, and more likely than all the others combined, to be sought when a users searches with "Valiant (film)". And we certainly have community consensus for PRIMARYTOPIC. Therefore, consensus supports leaving the title as is. -- 9625:). In both cases if there are no alternative uses for these other spellings, okay, they should be redirects. But if there is a competing usage, then we have to look at usage in RS. And when we do I think we should give much less weight to capitalization differences than to missing/extra space differences. But I see your point, and I'm obviously in the minority on this, so it's a moot point, practically. -- 3657:, non-admins should not be closing these, and so it follows that non-admins should not be relisting these. Also, relisting without a pertinent refocusing statement, such as drawing attention to late introduced new arguments, is of little purpose. Comment-free relisting is completely pointless, and often looks like a WP:GAME to extend a discussion that you don't agree with. Please stop relisting. -- 5284:

In this case my personal recommendation is a ranked survey (though in retrospect maybe there is only one alternative has a reasonable chance in which case a traditional RM is probably all that is needed, though a ranked one wouldn't hurt). I see no harm in these types of suggestions in general, nor in mine in particular. It's certainly not a violation of SUPERVOTE or any other policy or guideline. --

2291:. Townhouses outside the USA are associated with the wealthy (indeed in the UK, their very name comes from being second houses "in town" owned by wealthy rural landowners), whereas terraces are generally not. This is one of those articles where American and European usage varies, and as such it is probably the articles that need to be precise, rather than there being an issue with their titles. 7397:(copied your reply here, we can continue on this page) As I pointed out in my draft, internal search concerns are a wash - no matter which way we go, some segment will endure an additional click. We have no way to determine how many page views per day to the Einstein redirect are due to internal searches vs links embedded on other articles, but we certainly know that views of the actual article 3399:

suggested below, but the burden to provide evidence for your claims of my closes being problematic should be on the accusers. By the way, your argument, if we accept its premise for the sake of argument, is somewhat akin to arguing in the real world that lawyers or legislators should not become judges. But when you’re just throwing anything you can think of to see if anything might stick... —

1626:"What specifically have I done (recently)"? This goes to your good valid points. I think you are being much more cautious in RMs, both !votes and closes, since returning in 2018. The BLPCRIME was a hiccup that you could apologise for as an error made in attempting to broaden you Wikipedian interests that saw you stray into unfamiliar territory (Knowledge is very sensitive about BLP matters). 7401:. Even if some majority of page views per day type "Einstein" in the search box, I think that addressing the other concerns related to bad editorial practice will reap far greater rewards. Absolutely no one who wants to find the Albert Einstein page will fail to get there if that redirect is taken out of the picture so that we can ensure our editors follow multiple other style guidelines. -- 9037: 7260: 3477:). That has nothing to do with me having less of an ability to be objective in RM closings than anyone else. Having strong opinions in some RMs is no reason to not close other RMs. If it were, almost nobody with RM experience could be a closer. Again, if you see a problem with a specific close, whether by me or anyone else, I urge you to bring it up on the closer's talk page, and take it to 550:

personally-motivated campaign against you seems disingenuous and unsupported by the evidence — and out of step with your pledge. Do you understand that the long-term behaviors which have been raised over many years, and the repeated debates that they regularly trigger, are not beneficial for the project? And that it's appropriate for members of the community to be concerned about that?

8608: 5069: 2412: 582:(which had nothing to do with RMs or titles) that supposedly warranted bringing me to AN/I. Note that it's my history that is mostly the topic there, not anything I've actually done recently that is brought up. And if you look closely and objectively at what I actually did there, I'm confident that you'll find nothing warranting all this consternation (please correct me if I'm wrong). 4257:, I find it unlikely (!) that people typing "Unlikely" into the search box would really be looking for an article on probability. I'm not sure why anyone would type that at all actually, except those looking for the album or other named topics. And as for Freston, as I understand it we usually don't consider surname-only mononyms for titles unless they're highly common in usage, like 730:

complains, the community can't boomerang them all away. We need to take the complaints seriously. Self-moderation on your side seems to be the easiest way to solve this, but now there are serious concerns that approach isn't working. I don't like the solutions that have been tabled so far, but neither do I feel this thing can be closed with just more suggestions or warnings.

7978:

unexplained revert another editor reverted again, but this one explained their objection. Now we have something to work with (in discussion), and we wouldn’t be here had I not reverted when I did, and for which I just got dinged. Frankly, I think the reversion policy needs to be updated to allow reverts of unexplained reverts. For the sake of building consensus. Thank you.

1122:, switched the bias towards making him the PT. Now whoever ultimately closes this really needs to review the opinions in both discussions (three discussions actually, as views on this were also expressed in the Venezuelan's RM). I'm not sure how much, if any benefit was gained by refactoring this. If it's decided that he is not PT, then the page will still need to move to 3781:"Where there is some kind of urgency to resolve the RM in question", and where you have 2 cents, I would definitely encourage you to throw it in. Depending on the comment, it might be as a relisting comment, or as a !vote. Don't do both, is my opinion. Surely, I am guessing, you would like to be encouraged to proving a relisting comment when relisting? -- 589:

itself be considered sanction-able behavior in my opinion, and try even harder to avoid language that could be interpreted as disrespectful or uncivil or as personal attack. I need to remember in particular that ribbing people in fun while meaning well in an online dispute can be easily misinterpreted. But, again, I'm open to suggestions, advice, etc.

4304:

there are no other search topics that are anywhere near as likely to be sought with "unlikely", the album is primary). That's the point of primary topic - when we have an article that is about a topic most likely to be the one being sought with a given search term, we put that article at that term, or make that term a primary redirect to it. So...

4198:(sorry to quote a discussion from years ago but it is relevant) you made a point about how we title v what is primary. But in this case it looks like nobody would expect the article on Tom to be at "Freston" while readers may expect to get info on probability and similar at "Unlikely" but the cooker could easily be expected to be at "Ovens". 1597:, perhaps I'm missing something. If so, please help me understand how my recent behavior in RMs as listed there, or my response to the warning from the INVOLVED admin, "rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered" in that section of the ANI? What specifically have I done (recently), especially in light of my efforts with 1179:

proposed move after all. Or something like that. My head and my code are spinning now, as I just patched it without fully comprehending the mechanism by which it was invoked. In essence, you made the trivial matter of what to do with my likely temporary dab the focus of the move discussion, with what to do with Castro's bio an afterthought.

3881:

where editors are asked to "balance" the two when they are in conflict, with no additional guidance on how to do that. Some think likelihood is more important, others think historical significance, and the way these discussions go largely depends on who happens to weigh in. That's not a system. That's designing for chaos. --

8175:← (click that link). It is frustrating for me to find one incompetent "professional page mover" asking for and getting "help" from another incompetent professional page mover. You shouldn't need to be making typos on your simple page moves when closing one-move RMs, nor leaving overly terse edit summaries like "Per RM". 3415:: I understand that your efforts are done with the honest intention of bettering Knowledge, regardless of any disagreements. I'm simply asking that you refrain from performing non-admin closures of move requests for the reasons I've given, particularly since the same has now been requested of you by multiple editors. 3317:), and analyzed the situation is well as anyone could, as explained above. These accusations are simply outlandish. I'm "over-bold"? Distinguish that from "appropriately" bold, please. Lack self-perception? Show me! All this shit is easily reversed, I'm always open to requests for explanations and reverting. Work 942:. You changed it! Ha. No one every said you are not trying. I don’t think you read my expression and tone right. A bit too attention grabbing is not obnoxious, it’s a pretty fussy nitpick, meant as a joke. Wbm gave gentle helpful *early* advice, and you shouldn’t disregard his first three words, take it easy. — 6410:. The interplay between written policy, changing consensus, and the role of discussion is something you are previously not been good at. You also neglect to declare in the close that you are a non admin closer, which is always bad form. Would you please revert you close and participate instead with a !vote. -- 8998:

disagree with your comments, but in spite of the fact that I agree with you. Also, the fact that you linked BLUDGEON from your UP in the "Essays" section, made it seem pretty apt to mention here. Hope this helps; the intent is in the spirit of your invitation to editor review at the top of the page. Cheers,

396:

admin is encouraging you to close moves. So why not please just step back and find was to contribute to the project - such as by adding/improving content. Then you wouldn't be "persecuted" as you put it. :( The world isn't out to get you, consider the other possibility; that you're bringing it on yourself.

5049:, I would challenge your finding of "not moved"; the discussion rather shows "no consensus". The outcome is the same, keep the existing title, but a lack of consensus would allow more flexibility for a future move. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and possibly an amendment to your close. — 10727:

Theres your flaw. Title policy was established to help editors with wikilinking. There was no reference to what serves readers, and there still isn’t. Fortunately, many things naturally align, but one thing that doesn’t is forcing PrimaryTopic where they does exist, or title minimalism in general.

10504:

The bottom line is the community supports ambiguous titles when the title has a primary topic. So simply pointing out a title is ambiguous is not sufficient objection (and ”it’s ambiguous” was essentially the sole opposing argument here) to a move proposal of an article for which the topic is primary

9575:

The main consideration is what readers are going to want when they type "Easy Jet" into the search box, if at least some readers want the airline and at least some sources use 2 words (even if not the most reliable) we should take it as a legitimate alternative name rather than just an error with the

9520:

I can’t find any news sources that refer to the airline name with a space. I don’t see how it has any claim to the name, much less primary topic. It doesn’t matter how many users accidentally search with for the airline with a space. We shouldn’t mislead them into thinking that’s a legit way to refer

7474:

attempts to make a surname redirect there failed utterly. Speaking frankly, I think the reality is that whether a surname redirect is used is arbitrary and based on the relative "fandom" of a particular topic... and that is no way to define a system. Deprecating is fair and consistent... people will

7362:

First, while most arrivals are probably through external search engines our concern is with making internal searches work well. A given base name with a primary topic must be the title of, or redirect to, that topic’s article precisely because of internal searches. I see no reason why surnames should

7069:

As mentioned, when I did, I again hit edit conflict, twice more, after pasting copious bits of data throughout... hence, my note. As you can see by the many subsequent small edits, it wasn't so quick and easy as one might assume. I suppose the only answer is to repeatedly save incremental edits, as I

6685:

I didn't think I had to spell it out in chapter and verse. Usually the onus is on those supporting a move to come up with solid reasons, not those opposing. That's why we have no-consensus reverts to the status quo. The DIFFCAPS policy, which you keep citing, says the following: "The general approach

6178:

The other point is that if the article was always at the base name then piping these links now would not be something we would do. So there’s nothing inherently desirable per policy/guidieines/conventions about these links through parenthetically disambiguated redirects to an article at a base name.

6174:

because of all the piped links to the redirect that are remnants of the article’s previous title, or for some other reason? One way to find out is to simplify all those links to link directly to the article. And, again, I’m almost done (after an absurd number of hours of work, thank you very little).

5992:

argument: spouses and significant others may be all over the media, but you don't get a WP page just for being someone's husband or wife. In the Marrone AfD, I had to show SIGCOV from before she met Leo (which I found by searching on Google using the date limiting tools... before 2017 I think it was,

5517:

I think you should revert your close, as you do not appear to recognize consistency as one of the criteria for selecting the name of a page, and that was one of the arguments presented. Furthermore, 1 (year), etc. was rejected as the name of the year 1, etc.; so consistency, again, suggests that 911

4906:

Hi B2C. I would like to further discuss your decision regarding the Broccolini title/article name. I would like to offer further evidence that "baby broccoli" is the industry term for this plant even though it is not a "baby". Whether this name makes sense is not the issue, the issue is what is this

4141:

are reasonable PRIMARYREDIRECT contenders for "Unlikely" but I don't see that for "Freston" since there is no other topic called just "Freston" even though there are other places and people that are partly called that, none are called just "Freston" (since we don't have an encyclopedia article on the

4109:

does not give us guidance for these situations. However it turns out, it will mostly depend on the proclivities and whims of whoever happens to show up. If this RM was opened a month earlier or a month later, the difference in the makeup of participants is sufficiently likely to make it go the other

4001:

RE: Fourth. This need not, and should not, be taken as an insult. You are not normal. You are highly obsessed with notions of the objective, and averse to the subjective, subtle, nuanced. You could contribute much more valuably by focusing on your strength, objectivity, and trusting others on the

3366:

To be clear, I'm not saying that you cannot act impartially. I'm saying that someone who's principally dedicated themselves to influencing title policy and practice across Knowledge will likely not appear neutral regarding moves and titling in general — and per the instructions, "even the appearance

2610:

Why? Multiple experienced closers have noted there was nothing that inappropriate with the close that INVOLVED Guy reverted and brought to ANI without first asking me to revert as is the norm and I even explicitly requested in the closing. It was an unusual situation and I closed per the instructions

2123:

When an album is mentioned on a performer’s article but does not have an article of its own because it’s not sufficiently notable to have its own article then it’s not typically not considered relevant to PT consideration. Anyway, let’s see how this RM goes, but you really should have created the dab

1205:) It’s true I didn’t mean to make the move of the target page to a DAB part of my move request; I merely listed it as one of two possible options if the move request was successful. However, I can see it would be cleaner to move that page to a (disambiguation) page, and then maybe do an AfD on it per 1182:

So getting back to the matter of your "railroading". None of those other editors have disrupted the RM process and bot in this manner. I expect anyone acting as an RM expert and the process' hall monitor to actually have some expertise in the process, and not do things to disrupt it. That's something

897:

I appreciate that you've been getting a lot criticism for unblocking me, and thank you for enduring that, but you justified that decision at great length, and please know you have nothing to do to prove anything about that. The recent AN/I shows that plenty of people see how unfairly I'm treated by a

657:

what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period

414:

keep saying I shouldn't be closing RMs? Where's your evidence? It's certainly not in the record of the dozens if not hundreds of RMs I've closed over the years. So either make a solid case showing that my percentage of problematic closes is significantly higher than average for RM closers, or stop

395:

Again, among the root problems is that you really shouldn't be closing RMs at all. You're currently at ANI, yet again, over your forcing views on RMs, you're not an admin, it seems that most admins among those commenting at ANI want you to desist from pushing your interpretations of policies, not one

168:

No. The problem is that your are putting your own fresh opinion in the close. The close is for summarising the discussion. There is room for opinion on the discussion and advice for moving forward, but you just blunder across that subtle line. My own bias? I am clearly on record as proposing that

10537:

requires the closer to evaluate arguments and assign due weight accordingly giving “due consideration” to the consensus of the WP community as reflected in policy. That’s what I did, and I found very little in opposition to the strong nom and supporting !vote. If you want to challenge that at MR, be

10405:

Thank you and my apologies. I’ve added a clarifying note at the close. I know it’s not the outcome you seek, but there just was simply no policy basis cited for the parenthetic disambiguation in that discussion. Ambiguity alone does not warrant disambiguation of a title—the topic of the article must

10263:

Yes that's right, if there was a Beetles album called "Foo" in most sources and a Pixies album called "Foo!" in most sources the Pixies album should be at "Foo!" not "Foo! (Pixies album)" (and any readers typing the "!" in error use a hatnote if needed) unless primary or third party sources at least

9667:

discussion in 2018. Most people opposed though 1 opposed only due to it being not worth the change and another appeared to oppose only the specific title. Like the Fan discussion it seems quite clear that the term "electric battery" is not common so is not suitable for natural disambiguation even if

9608:

I see a distinction between users omitting capitalization in their searches for a name like Grateful Dead that is commonly capitalized in reliable sources, to users inserting a space in a name when one is not commonly used in reliable sources. That is, the band has a much greater primary topic claim

9494:

Even if only around a 5th or quarter of people use "Easy Jet" rather than "EasyJet" (probably actually more like half or even the majority) and there wasn't many views from errors the airline would still be around 20x as likely and thus unless you count breaking external links make it likely a clear

9242:

It would be very odd to argue that a 20-1 discussion reflects community consensus if the closer closed for the 1, especially if the strength of argument is the same. Of course, given that you completely discarded my argument on the ground that the RfC forbids me from considering it, I understand why

8534:

While the nomination and BD2412 were probably arguing like me that the name is primary by long-term significance given that there was a clear consensus that it wasn't primary by usage and that everyone opposed the move shouldn't the discussion have been "not moved" instead of "No consensus to move"?

6893:

I don't question the sincerity of anyone. We humans are, however, masters at making up reasons for whatever our intuition is telling us, and then convincing ourselves those are the real reasons. That's why I used "ostensibly". That's also why presenting our reasons to be scrutinized is so important.

6476:

I thought it was obvious. But I can spell it out for you, if you like. First, the nom provided a straightforward policy-based argument in favor of the move. This was not even addressed by the opposition, much less refuted, but was cited or reflected almost universally by each of the seven supporters

6336:

Most of the examples that would be covered by the Yogurt Principle are pages that face perennial proposals to move anyway, so there isn't really any additional destabilisation. And when such cases (such as New York) do finally get moved, to the titles suggested by policy, further disruption tends to

5535:

I did consider consistency, and, more importantly, so did the participants. That was the point there. Consensus is that consistency is outweighed by primary topic for that particular number which is arguably unique in how having multiple widely known and very commonly used associated topics it has.

5262:

I wouldn't call it a supervote, because it's really just a personal suggestion; it doesn't form part of the actual substance of the close itself. I would agree that it' was probably a suggestion that shouldn't have been made, though. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for increased use of ranked

4380:

are likely) for that matter? Settle was probably a bad example due to the other articles titled "Settle" but based on the later arguments I don't see how a small town is more likely than some everyday major topics even if they are likely to be searched for mostly by their full title, its likely that

4371:

change this. However when I search for "site:wikipedia.org Freston" the first result is the village (probably due to my location) so that seem inconclusive. What do you get for a WP Google search for "Mansfield", "Carlisle", "Gloucester", "Winchester" or "Bury" (along with the Freston example do you

4096:

While there will always be exceptions, there is no reason to have rules with explicit built-in ambiguities, like the juxtaposed likelihood of being sought and historical significance criteria in primary topic, where editors are asked to "balance" the two when they are in conflict, with no additional

4076:

time. Unusual? Before the third relist it had only one participant (yours truly) besides the nom. Now it already has a second participant and it's starting to look like it will achieve consensus. What if it hadn't been relisted but had been closed as no consensus? How is that better? Or what if an

3757:

On relistings in general, I personally have an aversion to "indiscriminate and comment-free relistings. I think they are a terrible way to seek extra attention, I think relisting unattractive discussions, putting them back at the start of the queue, damages the attractiveness of reviewing the queue

3374:

recommends that the non-admin closure of deletion discussions should be performed only by experienced editors "in good standing" — and it seems reasonable that a similar standard would apply to closures in general. What constitutes being in good standing isn't defined anywhere AFAIK, nor do I think

3210:

I would like to propose something a little less severe, and that is that B2C does not close any contentious or disputed move request, especially ones with a lot of comments and/or possible outcomes. Apart from the fact that admins should be closing those, there is a simple reason for this - and one

1510:

rather than be bothered with all the details. I often find myself mopping up behind them, when their closes trigger flags I routinely patrol for. Another benefit of this post-move cleanup work is that it will increase your mainspace edits, and a higher percentage of mainspace edits will help improve

1473:

Relatively few editors are going to be interested in reading documentation of esoteric parameters and learning how to make these sorts of infrequently-needed edits. Ideally a few administrators will be interested, and ideally this is the kind of thing I'd prefer only admins to be doing. But since we

729:

When a thread is started about your behavior on ANI, that sucks up a lot of editor time which is distracted from doing productive work towards building the encyclopedia. If only one or two are complaining, the complaint may "boomerang" on them if nobody else agrees. However, if a significant faction

563:

I'm just saying that that there is a high correlation between those who favor sanctions/blocking of me with those who have a history of disagreement with me (or have recently disagreed with me). It's practically 100%. I also observe that it's human nature to view someone you disagree with through a

380:

Thanks. I agree there is a problem with the current title. As noted above, since this RM was already relisted once and nevertheless garnered so little interest, I didn't think relisting again was going to help. In the mean time, I was hoping with my comment to coax someone with more interest in this

250:

while I might have closed this simply as "no consensus" (for the near-complete lack of discussion after a relist) rather than "no consensus to move" (which might imply a negative consensus) there is no question that the close reflected the discussion. There's a fine line to be drawn between offering

110:

I would have relisted if it had not already been relisted once before. Despite the relisting it had garnered no support. There was no super vote. My opinion was regarding how best to proceed with respect to determining the proper title regardless of which it is. I have no horse in this race. If you

10705:

Unless I’m mistaken, you’re the only editor on WP with an antipathy of hatnotes as demonstrated by the uniquely-held view that a user merely seeing “a hatnote to something they didn’t want” is an inconvenience. The WP community’s embracing of hatnotes is made obvious by their ubiquitous presence in

8489:

That was the argument at Yoghurt. But 14 years of disagreement does not establish establishment. That said I just double checked the history. Initial version is a stub. Second version uses British English spelling. So that is the original variety. And that’s what should be argued if this ever comes

7809:

Thanks. Both sides provided lists of examples implying consistency supported their positions so I saw that as a wash. I now see you mentioned unrecognizability which I missed as a reference to the recognizability criterion, however, nobody, including you, argued the longer name is more recognizable

7013:

Could you just hold up for a bit? Edit conflict already wrecked a large update I'd made, and as I now try to add it section by section, I continue to hit edit conflict. I had started editing today prior to yourself, so please just wait a bit. I was finished until I hit your conflicting edits. Thank

6672:

I'm sorry, but all references to primary topic of the title case term in the discussion were from supporters. None of the opposers, including you, even mentioned primary topic. Opposition based on primary topic is an argument not presented in the discussion. Opposition didn't even rebut the support

6636:

should be taken to the dab page to be one step closer to finding the article they're almost certainly seeking, rather than to the generic use they're almost certainly not seeking. The title/article configuration supported by a 2:1 ratio of participants complies with the explicitly stated purpose of

6587:

Please could you revert your close here? I don't see a consensus, and the idea that "Friendly Fire" doesn't mean the same as "friendly fire" is clearly ridiculous, there's no strong reason for that move to have been moved when many people experienced with page-move policy disagreed. It should be no

5855:

I wouldn't give much credence to the tautological argument. What matters is what the places are called in reliable sources (not relying so much on any one source like the OS). If you have a strong common name case based on usage in sources, make it based on that. If it's not that strong, but enough

5584:

should indeed be moved too although aren't as problematic as 911 anyway (which means the argument there is apples and oranges). When people were talking about issues with templates and similar I thought people were talking about thousands of links that would be broken but there are only 9 mainspace

5283:

Regarding the title of that article, I have no dog in that fight. My action there was not a supervote. It's fairly common for closers to suggest what they think should happen next in a given situation, whether it's no more RMs for a certain period, or a new RM with a different target, or whatever.

4670:

has been making a lot of edits in their very short time on Knowledge, including opening and closing move requests. In my opinion, they don't have the necessary experience or judgement to be doing this. Can their enthusiasm be redirected to an area where they will do less damage? I've already butted

3880:

I believe most "no consensus" closes suggest room for improvement in our naming policies. While there will always be exceptions, there is no reason to have rules with explicit built-in ambiguities, like the juxtaposed likelihood of being sought and historical significance criteria in primary topic,

3824:

The Relisting template doesn’t even have a parameter for a comment? Ahh, that explains a lot. The lack of parameter in the template will be influencing behaviour, and even thinking. It might be worth requesting (it being another sad thing that most of us can't or don't dare edit template code).

3740:

So, except in rare cases where there is some kind of urgency to resolve the RM in question, I see no harm in relisting by anyone for any reason. If a discussion is elapsed and it looks like there is no clear consensus and discussion is ongoing, I’m apt to relist, whether I throw in my two cents or

1918:

be done, and could not agree what, perhaps because it lacked equivalency to other decisions made by members of the community and painted a target on them instead? Again, not questioning your close, just identifying that this may have untoward and unanticipated consequences for the community. Excuse

1622:

A: It doesn't. Think if it more like a straw. Actually, think of it more as an aggressive wave of a stick. You don't get sanctioned for waving a stick, but it aggravated the allegedly INVOLVED admin, and the right thing for any allegedly INVOLVED admin to do is to go to ANI. That is proper, he

1579:

That is an extraordinary statement. A flat out denial of getting the message as articulated by a great many. The preceding sentences of that post were very good points, and then you ruin the good points by shooting yourself in the face. I suggest you cut that statement as ill considered. IF you

1037:

do it the right way next time. I realize there are a lot of instructions and rules to follow, and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be perfect the first time they submit a RM. When a lot of people keep making the same mistake, I don't view it as their problem – I view it as a system problem

872:

I'm in an unusual situation there - usually I oppose diacritics on COMMONNAME grounds. In this case COMMONNAME really seems to support their use. I was surprised by the sudden influx of opposition, so I decided to add the Google evidence subsection to spell out the evidence that had persuaded me.

725:

Some editors may be allowed more leeway, if they initiate discussions of this sort less frequently. Others have more "goodwill" or "(political/diplomatic/social) editing capital" built up from their (mainspace and other) contributions. Some might call this "Mario points". Yours apparently have been

577:

Believe me, I also understand I'm largely responsible for getting into this predicament. I grew up in a family where disagreement was the norm and I learned to not take it personally. So I don't shy away from disagreement or discussions/debates about controversial subjects. Plus of course I have my

545:

some of the same behaviors that other editors are raising; why then do you assert that those who voice similar concerns are not doing so honestly? One of your pledges was to be more receptive to feedback on your behavior; another was to welcome and encourage input on how to improve; another was to

10303:

Since the ratios aren’t quantified it’s a judgement call. In the judgement of this closer, 25:1 qualifies as “much more likely” by any reasonable standard, even with a higher PTM bar. I mean, even twice as likely is arguably “much more likely”. 5x more likely is definitely “much more likely”. 25x

9925:

consensus to oppose based on policy and conventions is clear. We really have to stop trying to make titles more precise for the sole purpose of more precision. There’s a reason it’s called unnecessary disambiguation. Because it’s unnecessary. RM proposals like this one, because they’re contrary to

9875:

generally requires us to use complete disambiguation even if other articles have different tiles. Regarding SMALLDETAILS that was presented by both sides I'd point out that the absence of "The" doesn't "indicate a distinct topic" since the title without "The" is the simplest form given most things

9483:

SMALLDETAILS generally works if a term has an unusual or unique name that only applies to 1 of the topics and doesn't generally apply to the simplest form most readers will normally type (or if obviously interchangeable or non-defining like hyphens) which is likely the case here as many readers if

5876:

in the UK, I think that applies to US, Australian and Canadian settlements rather in the UK its used to show that its not part of the name but an independent qualifier. I was asking you because you've spent much time getting articles moved so I thought you might have an opinion on these but if you

5013:

As the closer, my job is not to make a decision on the question at hand, but to make a decision about whether there is consensus among the participants regarding that question. When you have strong evidence in reliable English sources to support a proposed move, you should present that evidence at

4303:

Who am I to argue with Google's billion dollar search engine? Those results tell me that people searching with "freston" are more likely looking for obscure Tom Freston than the even more obscure village, while people searching with "unlikely" are most likely looking for the album (and, given that

3857:

As a separate issue, I know that there is a difference of philosophy among RM participants as to whether "no consensus" closes are a bad thing. There is such a thing as a discussion that trends toward an even split, on policy and guidelines and numerical support, and in such cases there is a clear

3848:

says about participation and relisting ("no consensus forbidding" participation and relisting), but I was still making a request to you that you avoid doing it. RM also says "best left to... editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion" which implies that the editor in question

3795:

What could the comment be, other than some variation on, “could use some more input/discussion”? The Relisting template doesn’t even have a parameter for a comment; the utility for one has never been recognized, apparently. I think the downside of any relisting is nil, and the downside of closing

2956:

Yup, that would work. Rather better than your example of someone fixing your fuckup for you, anyway. I'm done here, since no discussion with you has ever, as far as I can tell, resulted in your accepting that you are wrong. Note, however, that your citing of THREEOUTCOMES is purest arse gravy. The

1871:

When a report is made at ANI, the community considers the totality of the user's history, and is not limited to a specific time or topic. The community is warning against bludgeoning in discussions, excessive argument, filibustering discussions, wall-of-text, refusal to drop the stick, however you

759:

No I think we pretty much agree on that too. You can tell them you don't care for the way they asked, warn them about their behavior, take notes to recall if you see that type of behavior repeated elsewhere, and then still reopen the RM anyway, because keeping it open for another week shouldn't be

573:

those who agreed with me understood what I meant and don't see it as problematic (or as a violation of my pledge, if you will), but those who disagreed with me there or in the past do tend to see a problem. For an even more blatant example, look at the section just above this one. If anyone else

137:

You two, and a few others, seem to be unaware of your own biases against me. If any other closer closed that RM with that comment I bet you’d not see a problem with it. I am far from the first closer to have left a suggestion on “what to do from here”, but am probably the first to be taken to task

10770:

Of course, technically the governor is the leader, but the point here is that in normal English usage governors are not referred to as “leaders” and therefore the likelihood that anyone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia” is looking for the list of governors is practically nil. Do you not

9913:

I admit I don’t understand the relevance of SORTKEY ordering here, but the bottom line is there is only one film named “Valiant” and neither of the two films named “The Valiant” has any claim on “Valiant (film)” not only because their titles include “The”, but also because they’re page view count

9013:

Thanks for the reminder. RMs like that are frustrating because so many seem to participate without reading much of the discussion, so replying to them directly often seems like the only way to get them to see a point even if it’s already been made. So I keep getting sucked in. But I see the folly

8997:

territory, and about as far from "one and done" as you can get. Note that as far as the *content* of your comments there, I agree almost completely with your position (even if I didn't, that would be neither here nor there); I just wanted you to know that I'm not mentioning bludgeoning because I

6831:

Just a comment, B2C: I see that you haven’t changed. You still like to characterize any opinion that disagrees with yours as “pointless, blatant, and illogical”, “plainly ridiculous”, “ridiculous”, “rationalizing”, “fantastic”. Look around that discussion, please; you will notice that nobody else

6225:

And my friend Sydell has personally met Ketaki and the actress told her how much problems she faced for her verification of her instagram account when previously her account was me_ketaki_kadam on Instagram but because of verification problems she changed it to me_ketki_kadam but her real name is

3675:

for just about any reason - if there is sparse participation, or ongoing discussion, or a hazy resolution. The only instances I can see where a first relisting would be wrong would be where there is a clear consensus that seems unlikely to change merely because the time to discuss is extended; or

3637:

Please try to avoid relisting move requests that you are also supporting or opposing. It can make closes more complicated than necessary because it basically acts as a supervote. Relisting is supposed to be an action taken by a possible closer (i.e. an uninvolved editor) who declines to close the

2979:

The main problem with this argument is that, as the last thread at ANI showed, there are plenty of people who disagree that B2C is more problematic or prone to make errors of judgement than any other editor. There have been numerous attempts to get him topic banned from RM in the past, which have

1958:

But you haven’t changed a bit, and here you are, proving it yet again: badgering L235 about his close, which DID reflect the consensus of the discussion there, and continuing to IDHT insist that you don’t understand or don’t agree with the conclusion. You have gotten warning after warning - going

1816:

If you understand what you were warned for, understand that the community disapproves of it, and won't do it again, we're on the same page and everything is fine. Can I clarify that further? A community warning does not in itself limit your editing in any way, and it is imposed by the will of the

1764:

relating to you. As you are aware, a large consensus of participants at the ANI thread disapproved of your actions in discussions, although there was no consensus for any specific sanction against your editing privileges. I have closed it with the following outcome: "Born2cycle is warned that the

1524:

So, if you like I can mentor you to be a better RM closer, and improve your "QB rating". Last time I tried emailing you, I found that your email wasn't enabled. If you can send me an email I would appreciate it. What is that old saying, "praise in public but criticize in private"? I can take some

1450:

Oh! Okay, now I get it. I still think this should be documented at RM, because it's necessary to do from time to time. Especially all the info about how to use those esoteric parameters. I think we need a how-to for this specific situation as opposed to expecting each person trying to do this to

439:

I don't think deletion is necessarily prescribed here, but you might have a point about this not being covered by English-language sources, at least not any which seem to be quality translations. If you're going to start a new RM, and of course you can start an RM without proposing a specific new

11011:

My objection to USSTATE is only as it applies to cases where it allows CITYNAME to be a primary redirect to the clearly less concise CITYNAME, STATENAME. In no other case that I know of do we tolerate redirecting from a concise basename to a less concise longer title, unless that longer title is

10758:

are most likely seeking when they search with the title in question. In this case we are asked to consider a hypothetical user who searches with “List of leaders of Georgia”. What is the likelihood they’re looking for governors of the US state of Georgia vs leaders of the country named Georgia?

10687:

Readers of both articles are very likely to have zero interest in the other article. Every reader is going to be inconvenienced, either by a hatnote to something they didn’t want, and by being misled by the ambiguous title. There is no PrimaryTopic and forcing once where it doesn’t belong is a

6455:

If Opposition dismisses existing policy and conventions, break that down into "dismisses policy" and "dismisses conventions". Are these different? Did they blandly dismiss or give reasons. Did other participants engage? How to summarize? If the dismissal was justified and uncriticized, then

6011:

much appreciated, but I get the reasoning. I disagree with it. I think inclusion should be decided simply on whether the topic has sufficient references in sources for it to be looked up by someone. All these hurdles to keep from creating articles (and to justify deletion) make no sense to me.

5987:

grounds. NYT and CBS are first-rate sources, but those particular articles aren't SIGCOV of Carter, they're SIGCOV of something else that happen to mention Carter. A test I use is how many separate statements of fact can I cite to this source? If it's dozens of facts in one source, it's in-depth

3997:

RE: Third. I definitely remember you relisting and !voting in the distant past, including once when there was a great kerfuffle due to you doing something small but technically wrong. I think it did not involve the template, but that it inspired the creation of the template to ensure relisting

2627:

why. You cherry-pick support while completely ignoring the many criticisms. You moved the article to a title which doesn't have consensus, based on a non-actionable MR that had no target title identified, while vigorous debate is still underway on what the title should be. The "support" for your

2321:

of house - if you look at housing listings, you usually get detached (i.e. a single house not attached to anything else), semi-detached (duplex), terraced (as above, but the word "mews" is often used for small blocks of 4-5 terraces), bungalow (the same, by the looks of it), flat (apartment) and

2275:, but the difference extends outside the UK). A terraced house is one that shares side-walls on each side (apart from the ones at each end, obviously) with other houses. They can be of any size, and are often quite small and are common in working-class communities as high-density housing (i.e. 1501:

It looks like you're going to get off at ANI with just a warning. Consider yourself lucky. You should stop pressing your luck. They threatened to beat you with a stick, but couldn't quite get a consensus to do it. I'll try the "carrot approach" by offering more "inside info" and guidance, if you

744:

I agree with much of your advice here Wbm, but I disagree about the Polish trains. The request to reopen was not a textbook polite request to relist, citing reasons, it was phrased as an order, with snide comments about the tone of the close. I'd personally hate it if my every contribution, even

588:

That said, I'm looking for suggestions, for all I can think of doing is try even harder to avoid "playing tennis" in discussions (trying to slam every proverbial ball that is lobbed in my direction) - though it's a fairly common practice by many editors other than myself and should not in and of

207:’s comment to recommending a deletion, along the lines that railwaylines without secondary sources should not have stand alone articles, is a controversial recommendation and is not appropriate for the close of a “no consensus” RM. It’s a perfectly fair opinion outside the closer’s box though. — 9866:

I'm not seeing a consensus against the move but "no consensus" seems more appropriate. While I agree Nohomersryan's pageviews point to keeping it as is I'd point that you're point that "There is no ambiguity to disambiguate since the titles in question are already naturally disambiguated" isn't

9717:

I collapsed your new thread; we don't need yet more talk page discussion on this topic now that the RM is closed. The purpose of WP:TITLE recommending against using "obscure" names is to prevent us from landing at an unrecognizable title. The string "electric battery" doesn't have this problem;

8982:

section on your UP, in which at least three users made the same comment about limiting redundant comments at Talk pages. One user labeled the ideal response at a TP discussion as "one and done". Those comments were ten years ago, but they are still good advice now. And still worth following, at

6755:

Yes in most RMs no consensus results in staying where it is but this involved primary topics (where arguably the burden generally lies on those wanting a PT) and the guideline suggests we don't usually redirect incorrect capitalization when uses of that exist. Those supporting indeed showed how

6480:

Gonnym merely argued "I see no value (for readers or editors) in having two exact titles which differ in a single capitalization leading to two different articles." This directly ignored DIFFCAPS, and this was pointed out by Eventhorizon51: "the community has ostensibly decided that differing

4718:

in any English reference. The original move request was closed with no change for good reason - there was no English language evidence to support the move, only Arabic - which was admitted by the move proposer. Both the original opener and Xain36 seem to believe that names in English need to be

537:

that those who express concern about your behavior do so just because they disagree with you on other matters, or because they have some bias against you. I recall that this is something you've also asserted in previous discussions. I felt I needed to clarify this point specifically with you:

221:

You're imposing an imaginary rule about what's appropriate in closers' boxes which you apply only to me. Confirmation bias, again. I did not recommend a deletion. I just noted that if an article is not supported by English RS, it should probably be removed. Basically I just reiterated what the

9995:

though this means generally not applying it to the simplest form that is default to most readers unless a primary topic can be demonstrated. So yes at worst this is a "no consensus" rather than "not moved" especially in this case as we're not talking about base name titles but rather qualified

9905:

It’s absolutely untrue that any policy or guideline “generally requires us to use complete disambiguation even if other articles have different titles”. In fact, the first sentence in PRECISE literally says titles “should be no more precise than” “unambiguously define the topical scope of the

8456:

No. There’s no exception here. Per RETAIN, “When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.” Very simple. I suppose there is disagreement on whether an English

4713:

They have relisted many lapsed move requests, e.g. "Assiut Airport → Asyut Airport – Requesting speedy renaming to match the name of the city, which is Asyut. Ben5218 (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 {talk} 12:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Assiut Barrage → Asyut Barrage Assiut

3546:

Keep a public log of closes and moves. Kind of like the diff bomb I posted to ANI last month but with more detail. Note which closes were questioned, re-opened, etc. You might spend some time back-filling the log, maybe to the beginning of Feb or the beginning of 2019. When people come here to

3398:

I hear you, but, for the record, you and I have a history of disagreeing about titles, which is fine by me, except you seem to make it personal. I’m not dedicated to affecting titling policy, I’m dedicated to upholding policy. My record contradicts your claims. I may take proactive action as

3279:

If people don't trust me all I can do is try to earn that trust. I don't see how I do that by avoiding opportunities to build the trust, by closing only the obvious ones. If they keep using examples of my behavior that wouldn't be considered problematic if someone else did it to justify their

2834:

And, yes you did also object to some degree, ("likely to be controversial"), but I still contend there was enough there to reasonably conclude this situation qualified as one that could be improved with a move to a title for which there was no clear consensus per that section of the RM closing

1178:

the disambiguation page. In that scenario, the bot assumes that the page hosting the discussion is not part of the move request. Hence, I suppose, when it found that it was indeed part of the move request after all, the bot needed to notify the page hosting the RM that the page was part of the

3944:

to avoid relisting biases, and because I want to see the oldest unclosed especially. I look at many without touching them, considering so many to be unimportant time-wasting for other editors, especially where the nomination was inept and ill-considered. Another complement I can give you in

1875:

Let me clarify one other thing. I do not have a position whether you should be warned or sanctioned. Even if it did, no matter what I thought, as a closer, it doesn't matter. I don't get a supervote, and you'll notice that none of my responses here are based on my personal opinion: I'm simply

1804:. However, I believe I’ve not engaged in such behavior in a long time, certainly not to the level that qualifies as disruptive, and am not aware of any evidence to the contrary raised in that ANI. Am I missing something? If so, what? If not, can you explain what this is about? Thank you. — 230:

In other words, my statement reflected the same purpose as the notice: anyone who thinks the article is notable should find the sources to prove it. It takes some pretty serious confirmation bias to find fault in a closer pointing this out in the closing statement. For the 3rd time, if you're

6496:

Amakuru presented the only oppose argument that at least appeared to be based in policy, but this was challenged as a misapplication of said policy. Ultimately Amakuru opposed because "average Joe in the street does not differentiate between terms based on how they are capitalised", but this

3761:

I think a comment-free relisting serves no purpose. I think that relisters should only be potential closers, and having read the discussion and decided why it can't be closed you should be able to say why. In doing this, you are playing the role of an active presiding chairperson, which is

9157:

Given the list above, I believe you gave inappropriate weight to the argument of one participant, based on an incorrect reading of an RfC whose scope is very likely much narrower, and whose unknowns could have been elucidated by the closer, hence going against the spirit of the "Determining

8268:, firstly is there a good reason to change this controversial title? No there isn't as per the evidence presented. Secondly if the article was at "Telephone (game)" already would there be a reason to change it? Yes there would again because the evidence and ATDAB support "Chinese whispers". 7977:

Thank you. I know what edit warring is and I wasn’t. I only revert a revert when the initial revert is made without an explanation for their objection to the edit in question. If they refuse to explain/discuss, there is no way to develop consensus with them. In this case after I reverted an

10304:

shouldn’t be questionable at all. And of course 12x (25k vs 1k + 1k = 25:2 = 12:1) meets the “more likely than all others combined” bar. The point of PT even for PTMs is not to use it only when the other uses are very unlikely to be sought at all. The likelihood to be sought only has to be

8182:. Several of them including the first, which demonstrates the most common scenario, have a "direct move" link at the bottom right corner of the template. Click this link and your typo-free move will be initiated with a pre-filled edit summary that has a link back to the discussion. Thanks, 604:

I doubt this is an original thought, but an overflow forum for general questions, contentious move discussions and broader concerns on article titling could ultimately facilitate the lack of concordance or address festering discontent in those who focus on the discussions (which are often

6488:

You (SmokeyJoe) opposed based on the unique opinion (no one else expressed agreement) that "DAB pages missing the '(disambiguation)' are way too misrecognizable". Again, no basis in policy or conventions here. And when another editor counters with a citation from DABNAME, you explicitly

9533:

When I search for "Easy Jet" (with quotes) on Google all of the results are for the airline, none for the horse, same with Images, with books only 1 or 2 results appear to be for the horse (5th and perhaps 4th) all the rest are for the airline. With News while most do call it "EasyJet",

1580:

do, then I could cut my response back to "Very good points. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)" I offer this as a positive way of moving forward, available only until someone else comments. You may snip my words ", *until* you ... completely innocent”" in the same edit. --

2653:, I'm not ignoring those criticisms. I see that they are mostly either general (not specific to anything I've done wrong), or just misinformed or misleading, like your criticism here. And before you accuse me of IDHT, YES, I did move the article to a title which doesn't have consensus, 1487:

So why don't you start a page in your user space where you write down notes for yourself. The "insider instructions" of this sort. There is some more "insider info" relating to management of the RM process that I could share with you. Stuff like this that is kind of documented, kind of

568:

begins to play a big role. People who have a history of disagreement with me will look at the same behavior as people who tend to agree with me, and the former will see a big problem, while the latter will not. It happens all the time. At both the recent heated MRV discussion and at

549:

As noted at the ANI, your long-term behaviors (primarily in RMs) have been the subject of a remarkable number of discussions and disputes over a very long period, with concerns expressed or echoed by a great number of different editors past and present. The suggestion that it's all a

1995:

I think the confusion here stems from the fact that it isn't one particular edit, so nobody is able to point to one edit or discussion as something that stands out as being obviously problematic. I think it mostly boils down to (a) a certain tenacious approach you have in discussions

6484:

Cúchullain opposed with no basis in policy whatsoever. Similar to Gonnym, they simply argued "I see no indication that readers are getting confused by the current setup. Readers can find the dab page ". Total ignoring of policy and convention. And the position was challenged by two

697:

Fair enough, and I know it was my own proposal, but please explain why I should be held to limits that are not expected of anyone else? I can show you countless examples of other editors responding dozens of times in various RM/Title (and other) discussions. Why is it a problem if

3853:

looks pretty clearly like recognition that the opinion you expressed and your "closer" reading of the expired discussion don't match up. Why not, then, leave it to someone else to judge whether your input has changed the course of the discussion such that relisting would be useful?

3312:

Yes, my objectivity is disputed, by some. I keep saying... where is the evidence? I was just accused of SUPERVOTING in a close where I had no personal preference whatsoever. I put my blinders on, and followed the very guidance you, by the way, had just brought my attention to (at

760:

that big a deal. Or alternatively, tell them to feel free to immediately open another RM right below the closed one, with no prejudice towards them for doing that. I didn't find the close to be blatantly bad. Not a close I would have made, but not absurd and not a super-vote close.

5148:

level? My view is that the title with the full (Arlington, Texas) is preferable, because high school names are more of a local interest than a state-to-state interest. Since you are a "article title specialist", I thought I would ask for your view before I initiated any changes.

4826:

first. If you think you have a good argument for another RM to another title, as closer of the recent RM I advice you to go that route. But you better have a good argument as to why lobbyist is problematic despite the subject being referred to as a lobbyist in reliable sources.

1552:

because stonewalling and bludgeoning does not equates to willingness to discuss but opposite of it since it means exhausting patience of others. There is evidence of edit warring and basic lack of understanding of English. Hamster Sandwich had opposed but soon changed his initial

9302:

I think the RM should be relisted, and personally I plan to oppose, for the reasons I've given there. To be clear, it was a decent close given the arguments made, and I don't think Pilaz's argument holds too much weight, but I think there is more to be said on the matter. Cheers

574:

had closed that RM in exactly the same way I did, IIO and SmokeyJoe would not have even batted an eyelash; but because it was me, they demand reopening, give me all sorts of grief, etc. That one was so out of line even people with a history of disagreement with me are seeing it.

4105:. The nom presented a strong argument that the film is primary based on both PT criteria. But an other editor has countered that the original comic is more historically significant, and therefore should remain primary. Who's right? There is no way to know for sure, because 6060:

I’m doing it only for one particular article where the piped links are particularly useless and I’m almost done. Around 50 to go out of over 300 originally. If there is a context where the piped link serves a purpose I’ll leave it, but haven’t found one yet for this case.

5438:. Netoholic's point would seem to have been addressed by me and others that a redirect to Time travel would do until/if we have a separate article at "Time machine". Aside from 1 user who stated that they agreed with Netoholic the other user who supported moving the DAB to 9780:

This is not an issue with the close. MR is not appropriate here. It’s a special case. I’m inquiring about the reasoning given by the RM participants, and there is no rule against that. I will report you for disruption and edit warring if you collapse the discussion again.

9152:

The closer of the RfC is yet to clarify whether BilledMammal's reading of the close ("CONSISTENT cannot be argued") is accurate. As I have written in the discussion, I do not believe it is. Said reading is also expressed only by one editor, which cannot possibly amount to

7548:. Yes, we affect searching for one set of searches - a small population on a daily basis - but making surname searches have consistent results. People will learn that, on Knowledge, when you search for a surname, you get shown a list of people with that surname. You don't 4353:. I know I would. If I'm looking for an actor or author or ceo or bicyclist or whoever I'm searching for with a relatively unusual surname, I'm certainly not going to bother also entering their first name into the search box. I seriously doubt that's uncommon practice. -- 1601:, to warrant being warned "that excessive comments in discussions can come across as bludgeoning, and that the community considers this to be disruptive. He is given a final warning that if he exhibits these behaviors in the future, he may face sanctions"? Thank you. -- 9142:

As I noted on my talk page, I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across all bilateral relations, since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the WP:AT and still matters

7517:

are assessed on two criteria - common usage and longterm significance. The card-game concept has been around since the sixteenth century, and will most likely still be used 200 years from now, when Trump will just be known as a relatively minor historical figure, like

991:

I had a look at this, В²C, and—if I may—I will table my report. Coincidence implies there is correlation, correlation implies the possibility of causation: meat puppetry, then socking, then watchlists; the order of these items is from 'worst case scenario' to 'in all

1966:

is a gentle and courteous person, who will try to reply patiently to your questions - and I want him to realize that trying to explain anything like this to you or respond to you is a hopeless quest, a bottomless pit, and the only possible way out is to disengage. --

7955:, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Knowledge is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. 5634:

I'm not a template guru, but the move actually broke the display of the year article, itself, in that the "year in other calendars" sidebar ended up pointing to 2019 rather than 911. I patched it, and I've proposed changes that need to be made to those templates at

8255:

Why don't you think that the Chinese whispers move shouldn't have been reverted? Surely the oppose side made the stronger case to keep it at this title namely that "Chinese whispers" is 30% more common that the other 2 names combined in NGrams and even if it wasn't

9562:

The question isn’t: to what articles does Google take me when I search with the term in question? The question is: what is the usage in reliable English sources? Those two British sources are relatively obscure and the writers didn’t know better and misspelled.

2812:, but all of those also include a value judgment in the title and that is likely to be controversial for antivax-sympathetic editors - the discussion above may well result in consensus for one of these, but this RM is premature as no resolution has been found yet. 3993:

RE: Second. RM regulars know that relisting confers no authority, but for RM-unaware people, such as the page-interested editors, there is a perception of authority due to the relister doing something procedural that they don't understand, and perception becomes

3481:

if you can't resolve it there. We have processes for all this stuff, for very good reasons. If you were talking to a closer who had been overturned at MR repeatedly you would have a case. But this is just antagonizing and harassment at this point. Please stop.

8760:. I realise this was quite a while ago. However, in future, please do not close discussions in which you have been involved and/or have shown strong preferences for one view or the other. Good administrators don't do that, and there's no reason for you to do so. 4630:, and a quick look at Google, I went through the 23 pages of results until I got to the end where duplicate results has been omitted (Jeffrey Brown does come up). A Google Image search returns the image from WP after going down a bit. A Google Book search shows 9206:

It is true that the RFC "does not contain an explicit or implicit prohibition against making use of consistency arguments". However, it's quite clear about not using consistency as "the sole reason for naming a bilateral relations article a certain way", which

7793:

situation, COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC always seemed beside the point. That leaves CONCISE, which I believe was addressed. Given the first support at George III (and second at George IV) cited an essay by you, your close may have the appearance of a supervote.

7274:

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.

5897:

If it matters to you, it matters to me. But now we have an accepted (comma) convention for disambiguation (albeit arguably not natural) versus a not very strong natural/common name argument. Still sounds like a wash to me; not enough to overcome TITLECHANGES.

1962:. That warning didn’t help; nothing has helped. In spite of all the warnings you haven’t changed a bit. Yes, in this case you once again got away with a warning, which you will once again ignore. I know you will never change. I am only commenting here because 7041:

While "easy", it was quite time-consuming, after the fact. It's a lot easier to wait a little before editing on another's tail than it is to restore what is interrupted. Editing in progress typically needs a little space to complete. Thank you for the pause.

10828:. My point is simply that we can't depend on those few who search for "list of leaders of Georgia" to be seeking one polity or the other, so I don't think it makes sense to consider it a primary topic for the article about the nation. It's not complicated. 10180:

for example where I cited SMALLDETAILS incorrectly (though the move could instead be justified by pageviews). As far as I can tell this is reflected by community consensus or at least by the titling policy in general and the words "When a spelling variant

3280:

preconceived notions, I don't see what I can do about that. The bottom line is I'm a very good closer, my record shows it, and anyone willing to take an honest look will see it. I really can't do anything about the others, so I can't worry about them. --

10197:

namely the plural which the software doesn't use and the camel case which the animal doesn't appear to use. So yes my support on the basis of SMALLDETAILS is on the grounds that the absence of "The" when it comes down to partial disambiguation doesn't

4846:

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed

1309:

I'm was not familiar with (or forgot) most of these technical details and had no idea my attempt to clarify explicitly what that RM was doing broke anything. Thank you for letting me know and the detailed explanation. I won't make that mistake again.

927:

I think the blue-linked ALLCAPs level 3 heading is a bit too attention grabbing. How about "== Ghit testing ==", and leave the linking to the text under the heading. For sure, linking in dot points the searches you are talking to is a good thing.

6620:

on Knowledge. Users who don't know WP Search is case sensitive won't bother to capitalize, especially if they're not looking for one of the uses with a proper name, and will get treated exactly as you want all users to be treated - taken to generic

7056:

I had no idea anyone else was editing. And I've never accounted for potential conflicts. Nor have I ever had such a request before. Conflicts happen all the time on busy talk page discussions. You just copy and paste your changes into a new edit.

7813:

Closing RMs requires experience at RMs. Experience at RMs necessitates forming opinions related to title decision-making. I’m no exception. If that disqualifies me it disqualifies everyone else otherwise qualified to close RMs, from closing RMs.

7740:

While I don't have a problem with you're closes I'm pretty sure others will since you have previously had controversy with titles of royal people. You might have been better adding !votes instead? Anyway thankyou for you're participation in RMs.

7588:

I think primary redirects for surname holders are overused and I would certainly reduce the number (and the number of overall primary topics) but I still agree that there are reasonable cases where this is appropriate. There have been cases like

10774:

So how is this not a clear primary topic? How are users not helped by being taken directly to the page they’re seeking rather than to a dab page? In what scenario is a user inconvenienced by having this article at the undisambiguated base name?

7413:

All I can tell you is if I’m on WP and decide to look up someone well known by their surname, I’m searching with that. And I want it to take me to the article about that someone, not to some godforsaken dab page. And I’m not alone. Far from.

2791:

Considering that "MMR vaccine and autism myth", "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory", and "MMR vaccine and autism hoax" all have broader support than the current name, wouldn't it be prudent to move it to one of those rather than leave it

6319:

Just the 1st, NPR. Notice the caption? HRC. It may take some time for the secondary sources to wholesale go back to recognising and acknowledging and repeat her self-identification as Rodham (not just wife of Clinton). In the meantime, HC -:

5988:

SIGCOV. If it's only two or three facts – even if it's a dozen mentions – then it's not SIGCOV. When I search for Carter's name without the name of her ex-husband or current girlfriend, I find very little in terms of coverage. You run into the

3638:

discussion. I know you don't usually do this, but it seems to have happened at least three times in the last week. We could get into the weeds about whether closers can ever be fully objective, but it would be easier just to let others relist.

5922:. Going back to Handa I'd point out that when I Google Handa Scotland all of the results on the 1st page of results (apart from Knowledge and 1 that calls it "Isle of Handa") use "Handa Island" in the title. If you look at sources such as the 4755:

Hi B2C. Lobbyist is not accurate, but agree that UK politics is not defined enough. Also in your comments you don't seem convinced that lobbyist is right. I suggest Anthony Browne (business). This is very similar to Simon Walker (business).

7597:

where it was argued that the surname holder was a significant contender but in those cases the surname holders are PTMs while even though the city in NC and the facial expression are titled differently per our NC they are still full matches.

8119: 6657:

just like any other. The move proposal was already rejected strongly in 2014, so your close should take that into account as well - normally repeat RMs need strong reasons why circumstances have changed. Please revert your closure. THanks

3825:

Let me back down from my previous comments that in hindsight overstate the issues, I like pertinent comments, and I like a sentence or two of closing statement summary. Your recent months of closing statement summaries have been good. --

3056:

I think we could easily win a consensus that "B2C is more problematic or prone to make errors of judgement than most other RM closers". I certainly think so. I personally contend that across the last couple of years, B2C is the worst RM

2670:

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

6481:

capitalization alone is enough to distinguish topics from each other per WP:DIFFCAPS." Several counter-examples were also offered demonstrating what the convention is - this was not countered. Both policy and convention were ignored.

4168:). Its clear in this case that an everyday noun that everyone knows is far far more likely to be searched and by far more notable than a village of 1,703 and a town of 219 even if it is at "Oven" not "Ovens". Note that the categories 745:

textbook no consensus closes, was greeted with such scrutiny and assumption of bad faith. It's obvious that B2C has things to work on regarding his style of interaction with people here, but respect works both ways in my opinion. —

10811:

Oh please. Language usage isn’t math. There are always exceptions. Absolute declarations about usage always (see what I did there) have an implied usually, or rarely. Finding an exception doesn’t make an absolute usage claim false.

7430:

an article though, don't you want the first mention of a person to be their full name? My evidence related to Einstein on that page shows that surname redirects have made editors lazy, leading to poor handling of name mentions. --

4097:

guidance on how to do that. Some think likelihood is more important, others think historical significance, and the way these discussions go largely depends on who happens to weigh in. That's not a system. That's designing for chaos.

494:, especially on how hard to engage in discussions over future disputes, and on closing discussions generally. Many unopposed RMs are trivially closed. If you are thinking you are getting good, consider trying to close some RfCs. 7526:. So this isn't some malicious doctoring of Knowledge rules because people don't like the Donald, it's just routine application of our own PRIMARYREDIRECT rules on a case by case basis, which is exactly what we should be doing. — 9906:

article”. The name of a topic defines the topical scope of an article. We only add more precision if disambiguation is necessary. That is, it most clearly does not say more precise is better than less precise. It actually puts a

2367:, it seems to be more a broad concept article than a duplicate of terraced house, in that it covers the topic as it pertains to Europe as well as to the US and elsewhere. That's probably quite a sensible arrangement actually. — 3387:

Put simply, and based on the evidence, I think it would be better both for you and for the community if you refrained from closing discussions in general, and move discussions in particular. I would ask that you please do so.

9203:. Now that it has been pointed out that that RFC was closed contrary to your argument here, you're trying to say the RFC doesn't apply to this case at all? Seriously? Well, that argument was not made in the proposal discussion. 8232:

I don't know you; I'm nobody, and we've never met, and I have no grasp of etiquette in this unintuitive hell, but there's a button here that says I can send my regards, and a good part of me says you deserve some appreciation.

7762:

Previous involvement in RMs does not disqualify one from closing RMs, not even if they’re within the same area. I wouldn’t close if I had been involved in title discussions of the particular article with the title in question.

10210:

example given above. The title case version may indicate a distinct topic but the absence of the cap may not though often such moves can be justified by primary topic namely long-term significance for the lower case version.

6832:

uses that kind of language to ridicule other people’s positions. You have been scolded in the past, more than once, for intolerance toward other people’s opinions. Let’s try to keep it cordial and collaborative, shall we? --

6713:"Some readers might type "Friendly Fire" when looking for "Friendly fire", but unless the majority of readers who type in "Friendly Fire" are looking for that topic, it's not the primary topic for the Title Cased version. " 6321:

HRC certainly doesn’t reach the TITLECHANGES threshold of benefit over disruption to propose moving back, contrary to the Yoghurt Principle that encourages disruption to destabilise the current to get what someone wants.

267:

The close per se “no consensus to move” was fine, the problem is the last sentence. The failed RM should not contain a recommendation to delete in the closing statement because no one in the discussion discussed deletion.

7717:

No diacritics in most English sources as far as I can tell. It’s no slam dunk, to be sure. Definitely “potentially controversial”. So, yes, it needs to go through RM if you really think there is good reason to change it.

6776:

I would also add that the RM in 2014 hardly had consensus so I don't think this was "strongly rejected" in addition the last supporter is German and in German all nouns are capitalized but even they agreed with the move.

5169:

dab page. So should this one. How other high schools in this area with different names tend to be disambiguated is really not relevant. Plus the redundancy with two Arlingtons in the title would serve no useful purpose.

3796:

without relisting is potentially significant. Well, I suppose over-relisting can lead to cluttering the RM log, but if it raises the percentage of discussions closed with resolutions that stick long-term, it’s worth it. —

9185:

Thanks for checking in. I'm generally open to reverting my closes, but in this case I'm not sure it's for the best. I'll readily do so if a request comes from someone uninvolved. You're of course welcome to taking it to

4163:

While with Ovens you argued that you argued that you didn't think that the cooker was primary for the plural but its just WP convention that articles are at the single form when WP NC could use the plural form (as noted

3458:

It's great for an editor to want to close discussions, but our instructions seem clear that doing so is not an absolute right, and that if there's a question about a potential closer being appropriate for the role, then

2667:

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances,

7398: 1163:. This is not such a big deal that you needed to refactor the request over it. If the disambiguation page was a long-standing page with several items on it, that would be a different matter. But this is just a possibly 1703:

True. However, you are repeating yourself, you already explained that, and some, enough, independent others supported your contention that a DS alert on your talk page from a dispute opponent does not feel "neutral".

10020:

variant per SMALLDETAILS, then it establishes a more significant variation. Yes, often either refers to the same topic, but it depends on context. The difference in meaning between “the valiant” and just “valiant” is

9098: 6902:

comma convention for US cities. I also think the wide range of conflicting arguments presented to justify USPLACE says a lot about how those arguments are formed ex post facto of the preference, and not very strong.

5164:

I believe the main principle to use in choosing a disambiguator is choosing that which best disambiguates from other uses of the name in question. In this case all the other uses are disambiguated by state. See the

6171: 7464: 1954:

Oh for heavens sake! B2C, I haven’t chimed in on any of numerous recent times when you have been accused of badgering and IDHT. In fact the last time I pointed out how disruptive you can be at talk pages was 2013.

3937:

have not, unlike you, that I am aware, been relisting discussions in which they have !voted, intended to !vote, or have held a known policy-related opinion. If they had, I would surely talk to them on their talk

10564:

There doesn't seem to be a clear community consensus on descriptive titles not needing a qualifier when the main article does but the consensus at SHORTFORM seems to be the best we have which notes an example of

8435:

Are you trying to say that there needs to be community consensus on what the exception to RETAIN is? if so you should probably suggest that at the RFC but otherwise the guideline and AT are clear enough on this.

3909:. It was just relisted for a second time by an uninvolved editor but why would it matter if an involved editor had relisted it? That's what I still don't get. The effect is identical in every conceivable way. -- 6686:

is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for", which is exactly the same concept as outlined at

8569: 7251: 10479:, both of which guide our determination of ambiguity. This title is ambiguous as clear majority of editors believed, even if they didn't specify exactly with what or based on a provided policy. I agree with @ 2066:

How so? There is an RM in progress which I started precisely to sort out what community consensus is about this title, including whether to create the 2-dab dab page rather than address it with hatnotes per

9271:

By discarding my preference to weigh the consistency criterion more than the others, that wording is an accurate representation of the end result: I am effectively impeded from making a consistency-weighted

4265:(who would be primary were it not for the card-game term). Settle is a closer-run thing, as there are some other genuine topics on the dab page, such as the chair. Perhaps that's best where it is. Thanks — 1001:

Executive summary: should not be relevant to outcomes of discussion, but may be skewing all considerations and restrict closers in determining consensus. So it goes, and I hope this message finds you well,

10099:

Yes but there wasn't a consensus against the move especially when you look at community consensus and the fact SMALLDETAILS had been cited incorrectly by others. Could you please change to "no consensus".

9122:

A 2-1 split scrapes the bottom of what consensus is, and a relist would have certainly been favored by an experienced uninvolved user given the depth of the arguments presented, as well as the RfC history;

6276:

by Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2017. After failing her last hurrah, during which simplicity was overrated, and at Knowledge far too much weight was out on ballots, she returned to her long term serious name.

1136:(or vice versa), regardless of whether there is a PT or not; targeting different places based on a mere difference in diacritics is really silly and I'm surprised it's been allowed to go on for this long. 9246:

I note your silence on the scope of the RfC (bilateral relations vs border articles). The RfC was solely introduced for illustrative purposes and its close taken out of context by BilledMammal and by you.

8390:

I disagree with your interpretation of community consensus. But that doesn’t matter, so I won’t go into the reasons. What matters is that there is no local consensus that agreed with your interpretation.

6607:

specifically even calls out Friendly Fire as an example. I know you disagree, but your observation that Ordinary Joe doesn't distinguish between caps and no caps doesn't really apply here. Per DIFFCAPS:

1959:

back at least as far as 2012, when you were warned at ArbCom that your “contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors”

8670:

I'm surprised to see you be the one arguing that a different capitalization isn't enough to distinguish between two topics, and I'm glad to see it. I thought you were a hard-core small-details advocate.

3969:

relisting until just a few months ago for the first time. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I never did it a year ago or earlier. I recall learning about the Relisting template as a fairly recent

455:

pushing the "reopen this RM" issue. Insisting on invalidating an obvious result because of a perceived procedural issue (which, yeah, I'm intending to say you've invented) just makes it look like you're

3440:

with a horse in the race — and if I may extend the metaphor, you are one who puts the great majority of his energy into horse racing and advocating for which kinds of horses should win, often with such

1154:

None of this would have been necessary if you hadn't decided that moving the two-dab to (disambiguation) was necessary. The two-dab doesn't really need to be moved; the closing administrator may simply

10825: 786:

I thought I made it clear that I wouldn't have closed it as it stood... I'd just let it run or maybe relist again, with comments like what I said above. Can't predict what the eventual close would be.

10055:

Users disagree and both sides had reasonable points page views vs if the absence of "The" can distinguish. I don't see how the opposition clearly won out and "no consensus" would be more appropriate.

5603:

are there any other template (or similar) issues that I have missed? In any case thankyou for doing the right thing! and moving away from PT, issues with the destination are being discussed anyway at

2283:). A townhouse is a house on a small footprint but which is usually a large building in a city - they often share side-walls (and are thus terraced) (for example the famous Georgian terraces in Bath 10897:. 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 9407:. 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 9214:

Neither BilledMammal nor anyone else argued that "CONSISTENT cannot be argued", and your continued strawman misrepresentation of their position to say that only serves to undermine your own position.

8856:. 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 8068:. 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 6957:. 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 4160:. With surnames yes I agree that its fine to take them into account (and other PTMs) if there are at least 2 full matches but if there isn't then we are wrongly implying that the term is ambiguous. 1765:

community has found his commenting in discussions excessive and disruptive, and that future similar behavior may result in sanctions." If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Best,

8370: 6226:

Ketaki . Please help her and get this problem fixed .IMDB has alo mispelled her name .Her real name is Ketaki it's because of this media articles that publish wrong names . Please try to understand

4514:

into the search box to find if I wasn't aware that such searches work since its obvious that a person will usually include their first name. Do you agree with my point about NOTDIC v primary topic?

9027: 5224: 3498:

both for you and others by politely asking you to voluntarily refrain from closures. If it's upsetting then I'll do as you ask and post no more here, and hope that we can resolve this elsewhere.

3424:

Got it. If you see a close of mine that you think is problematic, please let me know the reason you think it's problematic. Just because I'm the closer is not a reason I will accept, by the way. --

10841:(which are all ambiguous by definition) to be seeking that topic or any other use of it.” In other words, you and the other opposers have not distinguished this primary topic case from any other. 7349:

justifications. I think, when one considers all the particulars related to biographical names, though, this practice probably isn't a good one in -any- case. Thanks for your time and thoughts. --

9948:

are indexed as "Bahamas, The" just like media in other words people are likely to expect even films that they know formerly have "The Valiant" to be called/indexed as just "Valiant". Think about

6847:

Thank you. I hadn't noticed. I can see how that might convey intolerance for others' opinions, but I assure you that's not how I think or feel! Thanks again for the head's up. I'll do better! --

9261:

Me preferring the current title by giving more weight to CONSISTENCY (a criterion) over COMMONNAME (an indicator) after having considered all five criteria is perfectly within the boundaries of

6637:

DIFFCAPS much better than the status quo favored by the minority in opposition. So I hope you understand why I'm not persuaded to revert, especially by anyone who participated in opposition. --

3962:

Second, you've mentioned this a second time now: "there is a small effect of claim to hold some authority". I don't get that at all. It takes no authority to stick a {{Relisting}} tag in there.

1855:(behavior that I had engaged in) I was warned for, so I don't know what behavior to change. As the admin who closed that discussion and formally delivered the warning, can you identify exactly 10176:) taking over a title on the basis of its unusual orthography, and should not be used on the simplest variant of a term as that is what people are likely to be typing into the search bar" by 8157: 8301:

Its a controversial variant issue but the move seems to have been in accordance with our PAGs at least today though if such a move was desired today it would probably need to go through RM.

8197:

Cool. Definitely a bad brain fart day for me. Kept conflating y and ey endings. Didn’t know about those particular templates that do the move for you to eliminate typo risk. Thanks again. —

7455:

Then I have to ask - what are your standards for which topics get surname primary redirects and which don't? Right now we have almost no guidance on this and so the landscape is not at all

7284: 4719:

consistent. However, English common names are frequently inconsistent with each other and need to be examined on a case by case basis. Xain36 needs to be aware of this, and act accordingly.

4367:

When I search for "site:wikipedia.org Unlikely" I get the Wiktionary first but then the album so that seems to support you're view. Possibly improvement on the various probability articles

10319:, the PT candidate only has to be sought slightly more than half the time. So for three topics 52/24/24 meets the bar. Here we have about 93/4/4 (25k:1k:1k). If that’s not PT, what is? —- 6502:

So, in sum, the four opposers ignored policy and they ignored conventions, and there was no consensus for such opposition. While there was dismissal of policy, any justification of it was

5789:" for both. And while natural disambiguation is dubious because it implies that the common/official name is the title used (which can cause problems for both readers and editors) as noted 8706:(no diacritic) could still easily be looking for the island, in the similar way here, many readers won't bother to capitalize but those that do are likely seeking something specific like 4192:"Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form...") but still should be considered. 4024: 6874:

Better, thanks - but just now saying the reason for USPLACE is "ostensibly due to the AP convention to include" seemed like a dig. Ostensibly? As in, pretended, but not the real reason?

2504:

with a hyphen and a period at the end. Please be more careful when moving pages. There also is no consensus on what title the page should be moved to, but you moved it just to move it?

9964:

one formerly includes "The" in the name but the other doesn't but even still the one that does include "The" is indexed with the main name first and it still primary for the main name.

6307:... all use HC in their reviews of the book. Yes, there are sources that use HRC too, so COMMONNAME is a wash. So is recognizability, etc. In the end, CONCISION selects HC over HRC. -- 1019:

So you feel as you stated above that sometimes you are railroaded when your behavior is no different the behavior that others get away with. Here is an example of where you have shown

10913: 9423: 8872: 8084: 6973: 6603:

By count alone it was 8 in support, and only 4 opposed. But more importantly, none of the opposition was based in policy, while all of the support was, as detailed just above. Heck,

4023:

I still don't remember this, but you are quite correct. Based on what it says, sounds like I did a relisting for the first time then. I'm pretty sure that was my last one for years.

4133:

Could you please explain why you think that the album is the "one and only" subject called "Unlikely" but you don't think that that's the case with Freston? As far as I can see both

3765:

On WP:RMCI, it is supposed to be instructions, not advice, and where it has strayed into advice, it seems to represent idiosyncratic opinion and had very poor claim to consensus. --

2957:

only possible conclusion form that RM was that it was best to close it as premature given the long-running and thoughtful debates already underway on the talk page. Stop looking for

1616:, copious comments already speak to your question: "help me understand how my recent behavior in RMs". It does not deserve an answer, see the current open and collapses ANI threads. 2276: 2031:

Thanks. I'm working on it. I recognize the meaning of my words often comes across as abrasive, which is not what I intended. For the record, that edit summary was in reaction to an

1235:

second time's the charm! Sure, it's cleaner to move the dab, then delete. Whether that's done probably depends on who does it. Making it a formal part of the RM is fine; just use {{

8779:

close a discussion in which I participated or showed a strong preference. Not sure why you think that these were cases of that when my only engagement was the closes themselves. —

8598: 7271: 5182:

Also, I note that there are two Lamar high schools in TX, so it makes sense to include the city in the disambiguator for them. But that reasoning does not apply to Arlington HS. —

1100:. Editors closing RMs like this really should be expected to do at least some of this disambiguation work after they close them, so as to "share the load" with the editors over at 325:. It's not recognizable in English. The RM should be held open until a suitable new title emerges, especially with participation this thin. There is an identically-titled article 10882: 9392: 8842: 8054: 6943: 1267:

Wow, the possibility of simply deleting the dab didn't even occur to me, which is really strange because I usually support just hatnote links in such cases. Brainfart. Sorry. --

9063: 7576:

determine PT, and I ignore that confounding criterion. But PT determination has an inherent subjective element for all topics, not just surnames. That’s no reason to drop it. —-

4634:

first. While I don't think those searches are that helpful I don't think we can say that the album is highly likely to be searched for and I think its clear that it doesn't have

3380: 1752: 835:

I don’t recall. Probably was looking at IIO’s history for some reason. I check on IIO’s history from time to time because of his tendency to make unilateral controversial moves.

630:(and the section directly below). I don't think they will be successful since the previous (lesser) proposal failed but I'm just letting you know as you haven't commented there. 9179: 8133: 8121: 6726:" someone who uses a capital F will probably look for one of the many uses with F, and if not they still have the first link on the disambiguation page to get to friendly fire." 9211:

repeatedly pointed out. It certainly does not allow for completely ignoring an overwhelming COMMONNAME (NATURALNESS + RECOGNIZABILITY) case in favor of a weak consistency case.

5242: 3653:

Relisting is supposed to be an admin action for a discussion that is not yet ready for closing. Usually, that reason is that the discussion is complicated and contested. Per

2687:, just above here on my talk page, and in reviewing it I had noticed that section too, which was fresh in my mind when I came upon this RM discussion in the elapsed section at 440:

title, it would be helpful to try to recruit Polish-speaking editors to the discussion. We don't really have an efficient way of doing that but you could try posting a note at

7295: 7084:

Oh, I see. Yeah, if you have multiple edits in multiple places in one "Edit", I can see how that can be a pain. That's why it's best to edit only one subsection at a time. --

7008: 5580:

addressed the primary topic issue. In any case there were 7 opposers and and 10 supporters (including the nom and Paintspot who I assume supported) The other examples such as

4861:

Ok, so should I present my position to B2C on this page? Or go back to the page in question? I'm unsure as the discussion is now closed but I didn't get to contribute to it.

4626:

We can agree to disagree on the precise interpretation of NOTDIC but the main point is that its a content guideline. The relevant point which we both more or less agree on is

4547:

can be used. I mean, "A red house" is not what "red" means; it's an example of how "red" can be used. At any rate, the main relevant point here is that it is probably highly

2111:"Coverage on Knowledge" is not limited to "has a stand-alone article on Knowledge". Most DAB pages list several items that are mention in articles, but aren't standalone. -- 5595:(which still needs fixing) which is a trivial problem (considering the other year articles get few views) compared to sending possibly 99% of readers onto the wrong article. 2394:. There also doesn't seem to be a clearcut consensus for a complete reversal of primary topics. It would be normal to have a disambiguation page in this scenario. Thanks. — 892:

I wish to also note that two other editors there are at least as "heavy-handed" as I am in that discussion, given our respective number of edits recently at that talk page...

6859: 5700: 3602: 2284: 1108:" seems confusing to me. We couldn't exactly wait until deciding to make the American PT to move the Venezuelan off PT. The there is a clear consensus that the Venezelan is 138:

for it. Stop persecuting me because of your histories of disagreeing with me, please. Stop holding me to madeup rules that apply to no one but me, like you are doing here. —

9049: 6557: 1014: 4822:

Suit yourself but a move review would evaluate whether the decision made was reasonable based on the discussion that was there. You might want to review the guidelines at

4714:

University → Asyut University Our Lady of Assiut → Our Lady of Asyut". I commented on that move saying I could find no evidence of any of the proposed new names being the

3730: 1085: 627: 1619:

Fair-ish question: " or my response to the warning from the INVOLVED admin, "rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered" in that section of the ANI?"

9197: 9126: 2280: 527: 8989: 7199:; Knowledge needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference. 3354: 2961:

and start listening to people who tell you that you're wrong. Otherwise you're just another megalomaniac waiting on the community finally losing its patience with you.

2702:

If anyone gives me good reason on my talk page to revert this close and reopen, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm hoping everyone agrees this is the most reasonable choice

1506:, but some closers don't seem to really want to do this work – they want the satisfaction of exercising their power to make the close, but they just want to follow the 533: 531: 8945:. If you think the template wording is unclear about this please let me know exactly which words led you astray. But the template instructions seem pretty clear to me. 8012:

Your second revert is indeed considered the classic definition of edit warring. Maybe you should try to change that policy to suit your problematic editing as well.

7267: 7023: 6653:

for the term "Friendly Fire". DIFFCAPS suggests that we may differentiate based on capitalisation, but it doesn't say that we have to. The term should be assessed for

6459:"without having consensus to do so" is particularly a problem, maybe even galling. It is a view that all valid arguments are based in written policy. This is not OK. 5856:

to support a strong case per NATURAL, accounting for having to overcome the argument that the comma convention is natural too, do that. Otherwise, give it a rest, per

2464: 4403:

I would also note that I do sometimes search for "dictionary" definitions on WP and I would find it useful if I get an appropriate article that can be matched to it.

1281:

2) either eliminate the DAB page which is currently at Julián Castro (regarding it as unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER), or else move it to Julián Castro (disambiguation).

5977: 1326:

To help prevent such errors in the future, I think somewhere we should document how to convert a single page RM to a multi-page move manually. I'll give it a stab.

6402:, and this discussion explicitly challenged the applicability of DIFFCAPS to this case. This makes you INVOLVED. It was also contentious, which makes the close a 10661: 8899: 8110: 7103: 6389: 6360:

If there is good reason to move A→B, and TC would inhibit B→A, then move (especially if there has been a history of repeated A→B proposals ending in no consensus).

1038:

calling for changes to make the process more intuitive. But I expect the RM regulars to know better, and to not waste my time by making errors that I need to fix.

10709:

Asserting there is no PT without anchoring such a claim to PT determination criteria is meaningless. Do you have a policy-based argument to oppose this proposal?

10036:. When an article’s topic is primary for its title, then the existence of other claims are irrelevant. And that’s what the final oppose established in this case. 6999: 664:

three times, that's it. No more, and take this a more than just a suggestion. The community would like to see you "self-moderate" more than you have been lately.

10674: 9823:

I know there are some refs. mentioned below, but I do not know which reference sources which phrase. Would be great if you as the article creator could help out.

6616:, so what really matters here, as several supporters pointed out, is the intent of a user when they bother to capitalize in the specific context of a Search for 5140:, but not with local schools. You can't be consistent with both usages. So how does one decide? In other words, should the article titles be consistent on the 1982:

Another wall of words - all opinion, facts from eons ago and no answers regarding recent behavior. Except a slam for what I choose to say on my own talk page. --

3844:

To be clear, I wasn't trying in particular to make a comment about policy–and I don't think I have ever argued with you much, or at all, about RMs. I know what

8238: 6707:"Friendly fire is never spelled with a capitalized 2nd word and people who search for Friendly Fire are likely to be looking for one of the shows called that." 6419: 6120:

Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

4184:

are about the part of the building (though I did clear some images out of the Commons category intended for Microsoft). So yes being at a different title is a

10483:

that you should've !voted rather than closed. I would still strongly suggest that this be relisted, but if you don't want to I think we can get it at done at

3547:

complain that you're not doing a good job overall or that you're out of step with consensus, you can point them to the page. Hard data will speak the loudest.

1202:

I do appreciate people cleaning up after my clumsy attempts at RM. (As you perceived, I don’t do that very often; wbm1058, did I do it right the second time?

7155: 5219: 4209:

even if there were no other uses" but as noted further down the discussion there were miss links and that not everyone searching for the other uses (such as

3941: 2853: 2772:"where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article" 2696:"where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article" 2288: 1116:. So closing out the Venezulan RM helped to focus the PT debate in one place, on the American's RM. Your close, effectively slamming the door on the move to 361:

right below the one he closed, proposing to move to an acceptable English-language title, or if you're unsure of the best title, just make it an open-ended (

10605:

or it's not primary topic, in which case there should be a dab page". The ambiguity arguments fall apart when you realise the redirect is "ambiguous" too.

7657:. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 5124:, Texas)" would be consistent with titles used for other high schools in Arlington, Texas. However, the articles for other Arlington High Schools in other 4349:. That last part is what's most important to primary topic determination. In contrast, I argue somebody named Tom Freston is likely to be sought with just 3676:

where an admin has already closed the discussion (in which case relisting would be highly disruptive). Subsequent relisting, of course, takes a higher bar.

95:. Closure by non-admin expressing "opinion" is a super-vote. This could/should have been relisted to let other train and Poland editors take a longer look. 10792: 7236: 7212: 4876:

At this point I would go back to the talk page and note that you were unable to contribute to the previous RM discussion but you think the title should be

3436:

Sorry B2C, but to be clear once again: the reason is not that you specifically are the closer. The reason (in part) is that closures should not be made by

1358: 10737: 10697: 4058: 1589: 1065:

are special parameters used to do this. Just edit the existing request to re-do it this way, and if the diff looks good in show-preview, save the change.

10940: 9450: 9208: 7712: 7540:

I think you've identified exactly one of the difficult things to do - finding prevalence of RS that use surname only. How does one go about that without

4733:

I brought his attention to the problem and made a suggestion. Hopefully that's all that is necessary here. Let me know if there are any new problems. --

4398: 4146:

about not sending readers onto an obscure village would easily apply to not sending readers onto an obscure album when we have coverage of "Unlikely" at

3295:"all I can do" - nonsense. You could start by trusting the advice, even if you have not had the underlying substance proven to you to your satisfaction. 2128:

since the RM was already in progress. But I’ve successfully converted it to a multi-page RM so it should resolve this whole bloody mess way or another. —

1570: 564:

different lens than if it's someone who agrees with you. Just look at party politics, for example. Or any relationship once things start going south.

10601:- This dispute baffles me somewhat. To borrow from a recent RM, paraphrased for the purposes of this one: "Either it's primary topic, and should be at 5676: 5649: 5622: 3215: 2932: 2874: 2865: 2842: 2618: 2195: 1938: 1192: 1006: 613: 9145:. The closer continues to say that all five criteria should be considered when making a decision on article titles (which is basically a rephrasing of 8550: 7337:. I am considering starting an RfC to deprecate such surname PRIMARYREDIRECTS and wanted your input. You can view my sandbox draft of the RfC proposal 6296: 5430:. The 2 users who supported the original proposal seem to only be that "Time machine" should redirect to Time travel rather than if the DAB page is at 5197: 3274: 3153:

That is good. That should be the NAC standard. NACers should not be closing controversial cases, and a challenge is hinsight-evidence of controversy.

2149: 8737: 8725: 8563: 8497: 8484: 8464: 8451: 8430: 8418: 8360: 8348: 8328: 8316: 8296: 7770: 7725: 7613: 6792: 6771: 5945: 5905: 5892: 5867: 5506: 4653: 4621: 4594: 4360: 4338: 3024:"there are plenty of people who disagree that B2C is more problematic or prone to make errors of judgement than any other editor."? Than "any other"?! 1329:

When converting a single-page move to a multi-page move, follow this example. You will start with a single-page move that looks something like this:

426: 118: 10347:. 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. 9084:. 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. 8967: 8950:

Please note that unlike {{Article for deletion}}, the discussion for a page move must take place on the talk page, not on Knowledge:Requested moves.

7051: 5563: 5543: 5397: 4998: 4912: 3383:

stemming from an ANI, and who in the past year was blocked for tendentious behavior related to moves, may not meet the spirit of that recommendation.

2166:(the same thing but only in a certain part of the US, yet it's a redirect to the British Terraced house instead of the American Townhouse), but note 8693: 8321:

It shouldn’t even have to go through RM. It’s a controversial variant issue therefore the original variant should be restored. Period. ENGVAR 101. —

7881: 7862: 7677:

Born2cycle moved page Édouard-Ernest Maire to Edouard-Ernest Maire over redirect: All diacritic title changes are potentially controversial. Use RM.

7443:

Full name is preferable in first reference of course but retaining wp search efficiency via surname primary redirects is far more important IMHO. —-

7091: 7079: 7064: 7036: 4740: 4728: 4693: 4311:- If Freston had a primary topic (but it doesn't, and shouldn't), Tom Freston would be a better choice (with Freston as a primary redirect to it at 3502: 3489: 3467: 3431: 3419: 3406: 2794:

Even if discussion continues between those three, right now it seems to have defaulted to one of the least popular names per the above discussions.

599: 10972: 10431:

is any U.S. state, demonstrates that such a title is not expected nor likely to be sought, further establishing the primary topic for this title. —

9884:

example the presence of the "!" indicates the film as a distinct topic but the absence of it doesn't though the generic meaning is primary anyway.

8398: 8365:

Well there was no local consensus for the move but when we consider community consensus (per you're essays) we would be able to see that community

7936:, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a 5308: 5189: 4862: 4801: 4762: 4274: 3529: 3227: 2563: 2256: 2042: 1811: 1668:"I just want to point out that not only has nobody pointed out anything wrong with my activity in the list of all my recent RM activity above that 471: 405: 262: 10764: 7583: 7563: 7497: 7482: 7450: 7438: 7421: 7408: 7388: 7121: 6539: 6513: 6471: 6444: 6432: 6377: 6331: 6314: 6200: 5291: 5177: 4895: 4834: 4809: 4783: 4011: 3988: 3954: 3834: 3803: 3790: 3774: 3626: 3463:

Given that multiple editors are now suggesting exactly that, I would ask you to reconsider, and to please refrain from performing move closures.

3451:

editor who's recently been ANI'ed and blocked for behavior relating to move requests is liable (rightly or wrongly) to be a source of unnecessary

3379:

editor with a lengthy history at ANI related to tendentiousness in discussions (and move discussions in particular), and who is currently under a

3328: 3307: 3287: 2526: 2489: 2135: 2118: 2106: 2094: 2078: 1923: 1731: 1636:

I just want to point out that not only has nobody pointed out anything wrong with my activity in the list of all my recent RM activity above that

1608: 1550: 511: 297: 277: 238: 216: 198: 178: 145: 132: 9979:

a modifier like exclamation marks, diacritics, pluralization, unusual spacing or capitalization etc it can generally be at the base name of that

9321:

went ahead with the MR. As I noted above, “I'll readily (revert) if a request comes from someone uninvolved.” Oh well, let’s see how it goes. —-

9021: 6910: 6888: 6869: 6854: 6304: 6019: 4856: 3888: 3590: 2352: 2330: 2317:

Yes, it is, but it's purely due to linguistic differences - here in the UK, we have fewer usual types and we don't usually differentiate between

2312: 2295: 2236: 2208: 1989: 1432:

if you're repairing someone else's request, to keep their signature and not add your own. The other editor's signature will be at the end of the

1292: 1093: 951: 691: 673: 9535: 8636: 8622: 8204: 8023: 7535: 6750: 6699: 6680: 6667: 6644: 6575: 6252: 6186: 6085: 6068: 5411: 4870: 4770: 4117: 3666: 2749: 2440: 2426: 1534: 1468: 1445: 1317: 1274: 1033:

When editors make these kinds of mistakes who I don't recognize to be frequent RM participants, I just quietly fix the error and advise them to

922: 905: 885: 846: 795: 781: 739: 709: 388: 10967: 10387:

as a potential case for confusion. This was a clear-as-day supervote, so I hope you'll consider reverting your decision or at least relisting.

10362: 9193:

Consensus does not depend on numbers, but on how well community consensus is represented in the discussion. Doesn't matter if it's 2-1 or 20-1.

7892:

The spelling does have historical significance. It is the difference between the closely related languages of two countries that are at war.

6346: 6286: 6227: 5963: 5426:

I don't think that there was no consensus in this case, I'd point out that the OP's proposal was mainly that "Time machine" should redirect to

5276: 5158: 4680: 3361: 3255:, with whom you have an entrenched page titling philosophical opposition, and I do not trust your ability to recognise and avoid your own bias. 3191: 937: 10561:

on a similar Washington RM in addition to you're opinions on the other Georgia one a few years ago suggests you have a strong opinion on this.

9488: 9351:

If you have a valid point it’s likely someone watching my talk page will chime in. But it requires a little patience. Might take a few days. —

9257:

discussions often involve conflicting criteria, and in no ambivalent terms editors are allowed to weigh some more than others in discussions:

9232: 9231:

Having only now come into contact with another requested move you prematurely closed, can you clarify what separates the two moves above from

8469:

Well even ignoring what the titling policy says I think we can reasonably say that 14 years does mean that this variety has been established.

7821: 5034: 4529: 4232: 4084: 3705: 3691: 3121:

I think "vast majority" is a stretch. Even the "useful" part needs to be weighed against the costs of editors who feel they need to watch him

2376: 1575:

You wrote (19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)): "I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here."

1262: 1218: 92: 10376: 10331: 9701:

Also agree. Natural disambiguation isn't supposed to mean using terms that are rarely found in the wild. The move should have gone ahead. —

8283: 7833: 7203: 6157: 6139: 5331:

There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the "

5096:

Greetings B2c. I am editing articles for the seven high schools in Arlington, Texas. A question has arisen regarding the article title for

1906: 1866: 1843: 1554: 1249:

could be put there to see whether anyone can locate a third Julián Castro, but if not I think these "one other topic" dabs are deleted under

769: 754: 535: 9941:

says 2 "use only as much additional detail as necessary" and per PRECISE it doesn't "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article".

8786: 8003: 7985: 5085: 5014:

the discussion, not after the fact to the closer who found no support for the proposal in a discussion where the evidence was not presented.

5006: 4916: 4089: 4043:, I'm sorry if I irked you, a relist was the correct decision IMO. I think you'll find I never relist discussions in which I participate. 2974: 2762: 2725: 2645: 1687: 1645: 10962: 8527: 7951:. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the 7356: 7109: 6561: 4888:

would be warranted even though we normally wait at least 6 months before starting a new RM. Let me know if you need further assistance. --

3965:

Third, "You have previously, from very long ago, had the habit to of relisting an RM while casting you first !vote." Huh? I don't recall

3762:

sometimes a very valuable thing to do, I have seen it done very well, but having played that role once, you should not be a !voter as well.

2546: 650: 546:

accept that the mere fact that you're not violating the letter of any policies or guidelines doesn't mean there's no problem to address.

10837:

Why don’t you be honest and admit you reject PRIMARYTOPIC for any article? I mean, by your logic “we can't depend on those who search for

9750:

We disagree about this matter and about whether it matters. Please ignore discussion you’re not interested in rather than muzzle others. —

9201: 7855:

I don’t think the primary topic is a slam dunk. Needs to be discussed. I, for one, would like to see the discussion to help me decide. —

7666: 7509:

The comparison between Trump and Einstein is misleading IMHO, because the biggest reason for disambiguating the former is the presence of

4974: 679: 8928: 8819: 8031: 7993: 4880:, present your argument/reasoning, including why "lobbyist" as a disambiguator is problematic, and inquire whether anyone agrees. If it 4034: 3916: 3613: 2989: 1692: 1678:

Good point, we have noticed, but be careful harping on and on about yourself. The ANI thread closer might very well make such a remark.

1650: 10024:

While all this is interesting in general, it’s moot to this particular case. Put it this way: If the title for a given article would be

9689:

I agree with you. There’s nothing natural about that disambiguation. It is like fan. I hope this is not a typical decision. Very bad. —-

4064: 3737:” about whether involved editors can or should relist, but when it’s done the relister should be prepared to explain. And here we are! 2698:, but that was my honest interpretation of the situation, and I explicitly allowed for getting that or anything else wrong in my close: 1956: 1655:, but I think it helps explain it. I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here. -- 10747:

title policy rules, especially primary topic, because (you believe) they favor ease of wiki-linking for editors over serving readers.

9853: 9618: 8916:

Hi. Can you please guide me where to put that request? Because when I used the template, it itself suggested me for this page. Thanks!

6920: 6497:

interpretation has no support in DIFFCAPS or any other policy. This position was challenged accordingly and effectively by two editors.

5814:

Would you have supported these moves? How much basis in policy does the fact that a name is tautological have? There is even a list at

3248: 2460: 1203: 10713: 10678: 9668:

recognizable it is not really accurate as "battery" is overwhelmingly used. Do you think the community consensus was reflected there?

6300: 6292: 5366: 10645: 10614: 10531:’s concise Support addressed primary topic square-on by reiterating that the undisambiguated title already redirects to this article. 10028:

if there were no other topics that claim that title, then even if there are such other topics the title of the first article remains

9236: 9093: 9007: 8179: 7192:

is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.

7135: 5849: 4901: 4750: 3473:

The (arguably dubious) block was for tendentious editing, a flaw I've acknowledged, pledged to improve, and believe that I have (see

415:

making these spurious and disruptive claims that undermine my reputation (perhaps that's your goal?) and are arguably a violation of

10681:

submitted a comment that I think exemplifies the main difference in our perspectives about title decision-making on WP. You wrote:

10673:

Instead of responding at the RM or even on your talk page, I though I’d do it on my own talk page and tag you. Hope that’s okay. At

8191: 10016:

I didn’t say anything about SMALLDETAILS. If, for the sake of argument, the absence or presence of “The” does not establish a mere

6809: 6258: 6235: 5091: 1507: 104: 11019: 11006: 10588: 10471:

Thank you for adding the clarifying note. But claiming there is no policy support for the opposition is just plain wrong. There's

10466: 10279: 10258: 10226: 10163: 10115: 10094: 10070: 10043: 10011: 9984: 9933: 9696: 9632: 9603: 9570: 9557: 9528: 7117: 5974:(in my opinion) – mainstream international publication, author with byline, thousands of words, focused on the subject. These two 5076: 4982: 3086:"There have been numerous attempts to get him topic banned from RM in the past, which have failed to gain any sort of consensus, " 1342:{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes|current1=Other page|new1=Other page (disambiguation)|current2=Current page|new2=Other page|}} 1339:

Say you want to add another move, moving "Other page" to "Other page (disambiguation)". Alter the above to this multiple format:

1147:

at 22:30, 24 January 2019. After this spurious bot notice came to my attention, I needed to debug the issue and subsequently make

645: 9491:

support the argument that while "Easy Jet" may less often refer to the airline it does often enough that the horse isn't primary.

9068: 7641: 7160: 6054: 5442:

was me and I stated that the lower case title should indeed redirect to Time travel (the original proposal). The arguments about

4978: 4503: 2858:

A solution that does not address any problems is not a solution. Thank you for acknowledging there is no problem to be solved. --

2673:. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. 2513: 2025: 1791: 661: 10848: 10832: 10819: 10806: 3977:. Or they might not. Someone else might choose to close "no consensus" when more discussion might lead to a resolution... why 3220:

I don't mind doing those, but my knowledge, experience and objectivity is wasted if I only close the obvious and simple ones. --

2060: 162: 10860: 10505:

for the ambiguous title. Nobody in opposition even referenced “primary”. The whole thrust of the proposal was entirely ignored.

10048:

You wrote "There is no ambiguity to disambiguate since the titles in question are already naturally disambiguated, albeit by a

9832: 9370: 7803: 5975: 5493: 4661: 3259: 2431:

Thanks! And the new information about the Kolkata station adds even more reason why a different outcome may be appropriate. —

1976: 1714:

What exactly is the purpose of that statement? I read it as a strong rebuttal of any and all accusations currently at ANI. --

10545: 10499: 10438: 10413: 9996:

titles. I accept the pageviews presented as being some community consensus against the move but not enough for a "not moved".

9745: 6841: 4686:

I’ve made a similar observation. I believe a few admins monitor this page. Perhaps citing a few examples would be helpful. —

3899: 1960: 829: 9652: 9539: 9466: 9259:

However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.

7131: 6673:

argument that there is no primary topic for the title case term, much less develop consensus for the notion that there is. --

6477:(not counting nom). Both policy (DIFFCAPS) and conventions (examples cited by supporters) were ignored by the four opposers. 6005: 5383: 5358: 5113: 5109: 5053: 5023:. Also, please understand that the "improper to use a trademark" argument failed to get traction because of what it says at 4347:

no evidence that any other uses are commonly referred to as "settle", much less are likely to be searched for with that term.

4202: 4102: 4069: 2604: 2303:

was my attempt to organize our articles on this subject (per the sources cited in those articles), but it may be US-centric.

983: 374: 10799: 9899: 9710: 9470: 9328: 9266: 9136:

The 2022 RfC does not contain an explicit or implicit prohibition against making use of consistency arguments, one of the 5

8769: 8578:

There were a couple of points that are unanswered, so perhaps it was premature to close the discussion here. Specifically:

5696: 3741:

not, and I have no objection to anyone else doing the same. That’s where I stand, but I’m open to be persuaded otherwise. —

1747: 10936: 9802: 9788: 9775: 9757: 9446: 8895: 8106: 7756: 7695: 7324: 6995: 6551: 5105: 2595:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10993: 10399: 10169: 9971:

interpreted the community consensus for SMALLDETAILS. It clearly states in the title "When a spelling variant indicates a

9358: 9346: 9289: 9226: 8242: 7319: 6821: 6597: 6166:’s. Thanks for butting in! Anyone else? Plus, in this particular case, we have an outstanding question - is the redirect 4407:

is an article that can be matched. Using WP solely as a dictionary would be if there was a DAB page at unlikely and it had

4154:. Even if people are unlikely to look for those topic with "unlikely", its surely unlikely that they would be looking for 3873:

I don't understand the penultimate sentence in your first paragraph. I know RM says "best left to...", but it doesn't say

3344:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2948:), and is not only proud of it (see userpage) but utterly convinced that any criticism is due to other people being wrong. 2694:

Now, in retrospect, I'll grant that reasonable people can disagree about whether this was one of those rare circumstances

2476: 873:

This is pretty typical behavior for someone to engage in an RM, and usually considered helpful when anyone else does it...

866: 718:

I think the biggest problem is the waste to the community's time, when editors feel compelled to respond to you. Spamming

554: 10326: 7901: 5100:. The article titles for the other high schools in Arlington, Texas identify the school name followed by parenthetical " 4195: 4122: 3906: 3748: 3392: 2691:. So I was doing exactly what a good and experienced closer should do, especially given my closing statement explanation. 231:

confident that this was an improper close, take it to MRV. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive and harassing me. --

10767:

where they addressed this question directly: “The governor of Georgia is never referred to as the ‘leader of Georgia’”.

10340: 8658: 7849: 4143: 2403: 1565: 11012:

clearly the more commonly used name. In that sense USSTATE is uniquely out of step with our policies and guidelines. --

10570: 9312: 9045: 9029: 8353:

Only if that’s settled by clear consensus. When you have RMs reversed by move reviews it’s clearly not what you have. —

8250: 7941: 7253: 5737:

is also tautological, the same sources (such as the Scottish islands book and Gazetteer for Scotland also omit "Island"

5377: 5352: 5129: 3867: 3647: 3596: 2704: 1525:

time to monitor your closes and give feedback on them, but it would be better if I didn't have to always do it here. –

6452:

It is not for the closer to say that some participants ignored something, but for another participant to point it out.

4213:) would know to search for that term. Again this would seem a good example of a term being ambiguous with a different 4165: 3536: 3298:"I'm a very good closer". I disagree. You are doing better, but you are over-bold, and you lack self-perception. -- 3027:

I choke on that one. There are people who think no other closer makes less problems or errors of judgement than B2C?!

2718:

process, and I implicitly acknowledged all that in the close, and don't you think you might have overreacted a bit? --

10627: 9988: 9729: 8571: 8147: 7971: 7952: 6395: 5529: 3945:

passing, to balance my many passing picks, is that I have not known you for making poorly considered nominations. --

2242: 2000:(b) a slightly abrasive style. As evidence of (b), consider (i) what you apologized to me for recently and (ii) this 1398:

and text surrounding it, this time providing all the necessary parameters to specify the multi-move. In other words,

658:

of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.

441: 9664: 8680: 7810:

with any kind of backup. Your own list of short name redirects to the articles at longer names implied the opposite.

7330: 5967: 2390:

Please could you reList the request at Park Street station? I missed the debate, having already opposed the move at

836: 282:

Again imposing the imaginary rule. For the fourth and LAST time: if you think you have a valid case take it to MRV.

8265: 6039: 5815: 5790: 5133: 2799: 2519:

Wow. Thanks. I've never done that before. The hyphen is intentional as that's supposed to be part of the title. --

2231: 2020: 466: 257: 9077: 8589:

And uncertain if the other points were comprehensively addressed. Would it be possible to re-open the discussion?

5321: 3566: 2870:

I prefer this solution to the others proposed, because you would own it. How is applying this solution a problem?

2154:

So I don't really understand article titling conventions. Was hoping you could chime in on a few that confuse me:

1124: 1118: 560:

I'm not suggesting anyone is being dishonest! Nor am I suggesting it's a personally-motivated campaign against me.

10932: 10496: 10396: 10359: 9514: 9442: 8973: 8909: 8891: 8162: 8102: 6991: 72: 67: 59: 9683: 8814: 8753: 7874:, do you now see how controversial it is? Regardless of how this ends up, the process/discussion is necessary. — 6148:. Let us not have any more of these "fixes" until it is sorted out whether or not they are really improvements. 2600:

I would like to propose that you do not close any discussion or move any page for an indefinite period of time.

2300: 2001: 1695: 1653: 722:

with too much redundant discussion of relatively minor issues can distract attention from more important things.

448:

you could ask them for advice. Helpful if you can determine that they're also interested in railroads I suppose.

10716:

you reveal an apparent disagreement with policy, which may explain why your arguments are not based in policy:

8938: 7928:. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Knowledge this is known as " 6614:, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, ..." 6216: 6167: 6102:). B2C's edits (at least the couple I looked at) are doing the opposite - replacing redundant piped links like 4776:

Thanks, but as an uninvolved closer it was not my place to choose a title not even raised in the discussion. —

3562: 2125: 1859:

I did that necessitated delivery of this warning to this particular user at this particular time? Thank you. —

10782:

because I’m similarly genuinely perplexed by their similar position on this title and PT in general as well.

6518:

OK, that seems a very good answer. I'd suggest "Support relies on DIFFCAPS" would be better written "Support

6145: 5230: 10383:

because we claimed ambiguity when we didn't cite a potential other candidate when we very clearly identified

8153: 7925: 7650: 5471: 5431: 5117: 5097: 3819: 1406: 1392: 1374: 499: 5911: 5658: 5604: 2579: 10999:

At first glance I think it's clear the state capitals for each of those names are not the primary topic. --

10906: 10521: 10243:. It needs to be disambiguated as well. UNLESS... (and here's the part you keep ignoring), that use is the 9828: 9416: 8865: 8077: 7776: 6966: 6879:

Didn't mean to quibble; I do appreciate your recognition of the problem and removing the problem edits. --

6704:

Support statements explaining why readers would benefit from placing the dab page at the title case title:

6273: 6025: 5716:

Even if the new names weren't the correct names they would avoid the need to (comma) disambiguate them per

5341: 5040: 8757: 8702:(with the diacritic) could only be looking for the Scottish island on the flip side anyone searching with 5642:

Shall we close this conversation, and discuss it elsewhere? I don't think В²C needs to hear about it. —

5019:

I have no objection to you trying again with a new RM, but please make a strong argument with support per

1880:, but you'll get more mileage reading that ANI thread and considering the community's opinions carefully. 10957: 10918: 9428: 8877: 8747: 8089: 7504: 7280: 7220: 6978: 5522:

some time to fix the templates. This move has too much collateral damage to be closed by a non-admin. —

5519: 5046: 5002: 4240: 4051: 4025:

User_talk:Born2cycle/Archive_8#Relisting_of_Talk:Journey_Through_the_Decade#Requested_move_04_August_2013

2795: 8698:

I think this is because (as I have explained there) anyone bothering to search with an unique name like

8585:

There are loads of other pages with UK in the title, a handful of the dozens of the examples were given.

5979:

might make the grade, except they were published at the same time (Aug 2019), so it doesn't demonstrate

4970: 4205:

that "All of the alleged three other uses are at appropriate non-disambiguated titles; none would be at

10602: 10517: 10344: 10333: 9115: 9111: 9104: 7700:

You really want to force the community to have to go through an RM to follow MOS on a French botanist?

7346: 7207: 5811:"Shuna"s so I'd just leave the Slate Islands one disambiguated instead of moving it to plain "Shuna"). 5690: 5548:

My apologies: You have a history of rejecting consistency as an argument. The target should still be

5470:(upper case, which there doesn't seem to be opposition for). If anyone feels that the DAB should be at 4987:

Note- NONE of these references call the product/vegetable Broccolini. It's all called baby broccoli.

4975:

https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchen/baby-broccoli-with-oyster-sauce-recipe-2104091

2495: 1902: 1839: 1800:, I’m reaching out. I think I know when “commenting in discussions” is “excessive and disruptive”. See 1787: 38: 10172:

comment "SMALLDETAILS is generally used to justify a comparatively obscure or specialized topic (e.g.

9249:

I find it very puzzling that BilledMammal and you believe that my argument was solely considering the

9052:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

5713:

Other sources (that can be seen from a simile Google search) call it "Handa Island" including the SWT.

4941: 10534: 9100: 8941:

page. It says to put it on the talk page of the page being proposed for a move. In this case that’s

8752:

It's inappropriate for you or anyone else to close discussions in which you participated, as you did

8423:

In general, yes, but not in a situation where there is no consensus on what community consensus is. —

7948: 7897: 7786: 7471: 7342: 7334: 7108:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

5459: 4461: 3474: 3089:

Disagree. There is rough consensus of the community having diminishing patience with B2C's boldness.

2871: 2850: 2601: 2322:

cottage (not necessarily one-storey, but has the connotation of being rural). A good explanation is

2272: 2178:. What's to be done about Townhouse and Terraced house in your opinion (if anything)? And what about 2167: 1920: 1801: 1741: 1598: 1239:}} and then it would be the second item on the list rather than the first. If the dab is moved, then 1003: 811: 610: 579: 570: 9732:

if you need a policy justification to sleep at night. Now can we move on to something that matters,

8979: 8686:

We shouldn’t be sending most people searching with a given term to an article they’re not seeking. —

7368:

As to first references being surnames... not ideal but in most cases probably not a big deal either.

7338: 6449:"Opposition ignores or dismisses existing policy and conventions, without having consensus to do so" 6291:

That's usage in the primary source. But what's relevant is what the reliable secondary sources use.

6116:

Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.

2770:

In the interest of communication, I want to be clear about why I felt that situation did qualify as

2533:

Please stop making controversial page moves, you already know it is disruptive and not appreciated.

10610: 10367: 9588:

ead" as its a proper noun even if some or even many readers will incorrectly type "grateful dead".

9577: 8917: 7933: 6898:

comma convention for non-US cities does undermine the claim that USPLACE is about following the AP

6826: 5202:

Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:

4966: 4945: 4181: 2944:

is a user known for obsessing for years over the titles of articles, leading to endless drama (cf.

2835:

instructions with sufficient likelihood to give it a try, and that's why I closed the way I did. --

1708:"I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here." 1243: 87: 10444: 6265: 5740: 5738: 4568: 4142:

surname) or well known enough to be likely to be searched for with "Freston". Surely you're point

3494:

It's not my intention to cause any upset or drama; in fact that's specifically what I'm trying to

10987: 10639: 10582: 10558: 10460: 10273: 10220: 10109: 10064: 10005: 9991:

local consensus ignored it. So while I'm definitely a support of SMALLDETAILS I support using it

9893: 9824: 9677: 9597: 9551: 9508: 8910: 8719: 8654: 8544: 8478: 8445: 8412: 8382: 8342: 8310: 8277: 8168: 7750: 7708: 7691: 7607: 7541: 6786: 6765: 5957: 5939: 5919: 5886: 5843: 5670: 5616: 5487: 5475: 5215: 4929: 4647: 4615: 4523: 4392: 4226: 3314: 2775: 2684: 2657: 1027: 639: 621: 401: 327: 100: 8457:

variety has been established there, but that too shows lack of establishment in and of itself. —

8371:

Knowledge talk:Requested moves/Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus"

7701: 3729:, thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I’m honored! I want to bring your attention to 2010:

know what DS alerts are for). These two in combination are pissing people off. Hope that helps,

1919:

my interjection on your page, В²C, I'm not as polite as you. I hope all is well round your way.

228:

If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

123:

The “Closer’s opinion” does not belong in the close. Your inability to see this is a problem. —

11016: 11003: 10845: 10816: 10789: 10542: 10435: 10410: 10323: 10255: 10244: 10160: 10091: 10040: 9930: 9859: 9850: 9785: 9754: 9693: 9629: 9567: 9525: 9355: 9325: 9223: 9130: 9018: 8964: 8783: 8734: 8690: 8619: 8560: 8528: 8494: 8461: 8427: 8395: 8357: 8325: 8293: 8261: 8201: 8000: 7982: 7929: 7917: 7878: 7859: 7818: 7767: 7722: 7580: 7514: 7494: 7447: 7418: 7385: 7276: 7088: 7061: 7033: 6907: 6866: 6851: 6747: 6687: 6677: 6654: 6650: 6641: 6510: 6441: 6429: 6374: 6311: 6249: 6183: 6065: 6016: 5915: 5902: 5864: 5857: 5804: 5646: 5560: 5540: 5526: 5503: 5394: 5370: 5345: 5288: 5186: 5174: 5082: 5031: 4983:

https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1012936-fettuccine-with-braised-mushrooms-and-baby-broccoli

4933: 4892: 4853: 4831: 4780: 4737: 4690: 4627: 4591: 4357: 4335: 4173: 4114: 4106: 4081: 4046: 4031: 3985: 3973:

Fourth, "why not just trust"? Trust what or whom? That someone else will relist? Sure, they

3930: 3921: 3913: 3885: 3800: 3745: 3623: 3587: 3486: 3428: 3403: 3325: 3284: 3224: 2929: 2862: 2839: 2759: 2722: 2615: 2523: 2486: 2423: 2323: 2253: 2249:. Consensus at that RM (which I closed) was that those two should remain separate articles. -- 2205: 2132: 2103: 2075: 2039: 1986: 1935: 1863: 1808: 1759: 1659: 1605: 1561: 1465: 1355: 1314: 1271: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1097: 1096:

my edit history for this disambiguaiton work. While working through those, I found a few where

1069: 1050: 1046: 980: 959:

This is a bit suspicious. Look at the time stamps of the four opposes that appeared in a row:

919: 902: 882: 843: 817: 778: 706: 596: 542: 423: 385: 294: 235: 195: 159: 142: 115: 8219: 6723:"Anyone capitalising "Fire" in a search will surely be looking for something on the dab page." 5695:

Given that you have an extensive interest in titles I'm wandering what you're opinion is with

4979:

https://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/garlic-baby-broccoli/a8dfad0c-6067-46b9-ae02-4b5823d59bd1

3150:"always shown himself far more willing than most to reverse closes where they are challenged." 10894: 10566: 10554:

and I don't see a consensus that the descriptive title is unambiguous or at least relatively.

10052:" so while you didn't actually cite that policy it looks like at least you implied citing it. 9404: 9058: 8853: 8676: 8141: 8065: 7843: 7075: 7047: 7019: 6954: 6580: 5926:

you can see that they introduce it as "Handa Island" and then use "Handa" in text (something

5923: 5166: 4962: 4724: 4676: 3894: 3576: 3455:

when he starts closing move requests. To me that seems fairly self-evident: would you agree?

2951:

Solution: Born2cyle indefintiely restircted from initiating or closing page move discussions.

1689: 1647: 1092:, to clear out the primary-topic links before the other article could be moved to PT status. 852: 10802:

For my own part, I'm genuinely perplexed why you accept such claims without verifying them.

7992:

For the record, that second revert with explanation prompted me to start a discussion here:

6720:

wikilinks were mistargeted is strong evidence that Friendly fire is not the primary topic. "

6337:

end. Suggesting that an early invocation of WP:YOGURT reduces the amount of time wasted. —

6076:

You have been told that it is contrary to guidelines. What don't you understand about that?

5136:, etc. So the current title for Arlington High School is consistent with the usage in other 4953: 4077:

involved editor, the nom or myself, had relisted? What would have been so bad about that? --

2893:

is an admin who has been known to use their administrative powers in situations contrary to

10948: 10905:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 9816: 9415:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 9250: 9081: 9070: 8864:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 8076:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 7906: 7893: 7782: 7456: 7312: 7125: 6965:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 6035: 5808: 5800: 5636: 5518:(year) should have been rejected. Furthermore, the move should have been deferred to allow 5447: 5419: 5020: 4990: 4715: 4707: 3558: 3550: 3212: 2391: 2327: 2292: 2227: 2016: 526:

Hi Born2cycle — I just wanted to follow up here on something in particular you'd posted at

317: 285: 223: 47: 17: 4792:

Thanks B2C. Got it. I might open up another move review on this item as lobbyist is wrong.

2049:

Ok you know that stuff above you were warned about? You're doing it again in relation to

8: 10733: 10693: 10621: 10606: 10528: 10492: 10448: 10447:

you have claimed the RM discussion there was bad even though the title is ambiguous, see

10392: 10384: 10355: 10177: 10075:

No, I wasn't thinking about the nuances of the SMALLDETAILS guidance; I literally meant,

9860: 9720:

UCRN literally states Knowledge "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...

8369:

favours keeping it at "Chinese whispers" even if local consensus was otherwise like with

8366: 8172: 7937: 7790: 7560: 7479: 7435: 7405: 7353: 6565: 6535: 6467: 6415: 6407: 6327: 6282: 6196: 6111: 6091: 6042: 5989: 5980: 5326: 5238: 5154: 4937: 4866: 4805: 4766: 4556: 4453: 4151: 4138: 4007: 3950: 3850: 3830: 3786: 3770: 3701: 3662: 3606: 3303: 3270: 3187: 2509: 2472: 2448: 2382: 2115: 2091: 2057: 1877: 1727: 1719: 1585: 1556:

and to say he sees no evidence when his 2nd comment shows otherwise would be misleading.

947: 933: 507: 273: 212: 174: 128: 8289:

It’s controversial variant issue therefore should go back to original variant, period. —

7128:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 6875: 6090:

Talk page stalker butting in. Not sure I agree with your interpretation of policy here.

5910:

You have a strong opinion on titles as can be seen from you're user page (in particular

4925: 1876:

repackaging the words of others at ANI. I am glad to continue to respond as required by

1074:

adding explicity move of the dab page to this proposal which was originally only implied

10980: 10632: 10598: 10575: 10480: 10453: 10266: 10213: 10102: 10057: 9998: 9886: 9670: 9590: 9544: 9501: 9254: 9146: 9137: 9041: 9003: 8994: 8984: 8954:

Add this template at the bottom of the talk page of the page that you want to be moved.

8712: 8650: 8582:

There is no evidence to suggest the agency is actually called "United Kingdom ...", and

8537: 8471: 8438: 8405: 8375: 8335: 8303: 8270: 8210: 7743: 7704: 7687: 7600: 7510: 7289: 6884: 6837: 6779: 6758: 6604: 6399: 6000: 5932: 5879: 5836: 5663: 5629: 5609: 5480: 5451: 5211: 5024: 4699: 4640: 4608: 4516: 4385: 4283: 4219: 4189: 3863: 3717: 3643: 3252: 2894: 2348: 2308: 2191: 2032: 1972: 1683: 1641: 1288: 1214: 1128:, despite your close that said there was "clearly no consensus" to move to that title. 632: 397: 352: 96: 9728:, but in this case we can't, because "battery" is ambiguous. You can think of it as a 9133:) and not to other articles involving two countries (borders, treaties, or conflicts); 6808:

I didn't vote in this RM, but FWIW, you might guess from my comments at the bottom of

4456:) are relevant to the meaning of "Unlikely" which unlike the above doesn't fall under 10876: 10688:

complete negative. No reader is inconvenience by the current title being what it is.

10472: 9877: 9872: 9817: 9706: 9386: 9308: 8934: 8922: 8836: 8810: 8632: 8594: 8257: 8187: 8048: 8018: 7531: 7519: 7151: 7142:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

6937: 6817: 6695: 6663: 6593: 6342: 6231: 6153: 6135: 6081: 6050: 5873: 5759: 5717: 5643: 5607:. This seems like another great Yogurt Principle case (and possibly the worst case). 5598: 5589: 5557: 5523: 5443: 5407: 5272: 4584: 4507: 4270: 3813: 3632: 2985: 2958: 2737:, one of the key reasons I decided "the best title of the options available" was the 2436: 2399: 2372: 2068: 1557: 1530: 1441: 1424:

to make sure it's getting replaced the way you intend, before you save the edit. Use

1258: 1206: 1188: 862: 825: 791: 765: 750: 735: 719: 687: 669: 565: 521: 502:

is a list of RfC closes by a particularly impressive non-admin discussion closer. --

370: 184: 10140:. You appear to be saying the first can be disambiguated from the second due to the 8649:

Seemed to be an admin move - that's all. Could a non admin do? Anyway now no issue.

6564:

that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it.

5205: 2099:

Only two of which are relevant (are sufficiently notable to have coverage on WP). --

1640:

has compiled so helpfully, but this AN/I was started due to my terse reaction to an

1106:

this is messy because of the move of the Venezuelan president during this discussion

10925: 10890: 10829: 10803: 10779: 10721:

Title policy is established for us to have titles that are most helpful to readers.

9798: 9771: 9741: 9435: 9400: 9053: 8884: 8849: 8672: 8137: 8096: 8061: 7871: 7838: 7735: 7671: 7071: 7043: 7015: 6985: 6950: 6403: 6242: 6123: 5971: 5831: 5827: 4720: 4703: 4672: 4603: 4457: 4177: 4127: 3686: 3671:

I disagree. Any editor, including an involved editor, can relist a move discussion

3533: 3499: 3464: 3416: 3389: 3348: 2945: 2741:

title, was your own assessment of the discussion upon which the RM was predicated:

2584: 2501: 1896: 1833: 1781: 1323:

Yes, of course the current1/current2 stuff. I should have caught that. So sorry.

1081: 551: 445: 6877: 6367:

That was exactly the case when the article was at HRC. But now TC inhibits HC→HRC.

2908:

agrees to ask an uninvolved admin to intervene in any conflict situation in which

1151:

in order to stop the bot from edit-warring over removal of its misplaced message.

1133: 1077: 609:

to our community by amplifying and centralizing your experience in these matters.

357:

I wouldn't press the matter too much here. After he says "go to MR", I would just

11013: 11000: 10842: 10813: 10786: 10539: 10508:

Your argument was the only opposing one with substance, and its whole point—that

10432: 10407: 10320: 10252: 10157: 10088: 10037: 9953: 9938: 9927: 9868: 9847: 9782: 9751: 9690: 9626: 9564: 9522: 9499:

So it seems quite clear at least the horse shouldn't have been at the base name.

9352: 9342: 9322: 9285: 9220: 9175: 9167: 9089: 9015: 8961: 8780: 8731: 8687: 8616: 8557: 8491: 8458: 8424: 8392: 8354: 8322: 8290: 8234: 8198: 8134:

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston § Requested move 10 February 2021

8122:

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston § Requested move 10 February 2021

7997: 7979: 7875: 7856: 7827: 7815: 7799: 7764: 7719: 7683: 7661: 7654: 7643: 7577: 7491: 7444: 7415: 7382: 7381:

one. I suggest you spend your time on something much more likely to bear fruit. —

7305: 7085: 7058: 7030: 6904: 6863: 6848: 6744: 6674: 6638: 6507: 6438: 6426: 6371: 6308: 6246: 6180: 6062: 6013: 5984: 5899: 5861: 5823: 5819: 5537: 5500: 5391: 5285: 5250: 5183: 5171: 5079: 5028: 4889: 4884:

there is support for that, then starting a new RM discussion per instructions at

4850: 4828: 4777: 4734: 4687: 4588: 4377: 4354: 4332: 4111: 4078: 4028: 3982: 3910: 3882: 3797: 3742: 3620: 3584: 3483: 3452: 3442: 3425: 3400: 3322: 3281: 3221: 2941: 2926: 2859: 2836: 2756: 2719: 2612: 2520: 2483: 2420: 2250: 2222: 2202: 2129: 2100: 2072: 2036: 2011: 1983: 1932: 1860: 1805: 1756: 1656: 1613: 1602: 1462: 1352: 1311: 1268: 977: 916: 899: 879: 840: 775: 703: 593: 461: 457: 420: 382: 291: 284:

Any further comments from you about this here on my talk page will be treated as

252: 232: 192: 156: 139: 112: 10750:

What you seem to ignore, repeatedly and consistently, is that the primary topic

6710:"most readers bothering to capitalize that second F probably want a proper noun" 6222: 1143:

at 22:24, 24 January 2019; minutes later the bot, which was not expecting that,

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

10902: 10729: 10689: 10667: 10594: 10488: 10388: 10351: 10231:

Okay! Thank you for your patience! I get it now. If we have two uses for, say,

10084: 9412: 9159: 8861: 8073: 7921: 7557: 7523: 7487: 7476: 7468: 7432: 7402: 7350: 6962: 6531: 6463: 6411: 6354: 6323: 6278: 6192: 6031: 5927: 5758:

If the OS (or other sources" use "Island") then "Placename" for the purpose of

5267:

as a result of the new discussion. Thanks, and a happy weekend to you both. —

5257: 5234: 5150: 4169: 4040: 4003: 3946: 3826: 3782: 3766: 3726: 3697: 3658: 3299: 3266: 3183: 2711: 2680: 2505: 2468: 2268: 2171: 2159: 2112: 2088: 2054: 1723: 1715: 1594: 1581: 1544: 1503: 1428:

if you want to keep the existing section header rather than paste over it, and

943: 929: 503: 411: 345: 269: 245: 208: 170: 124: 10953:

What do you make of the following recent RM discussions on US state capitals?

8403:

Local consensus is not what matters its community consensus per you're essay.

7166: 820:, I was wondering how you found that article within 12 hours of its creation? 10898: 10744: 10476: 10207: 10203: 9610: 9581: 9408: 9299: 8999: 8857: 8765: 8707: 8644: 8069: 7272:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kolossus (disambigution)

7227: 7189: 6958: 6880: 6833: 6717: 6622: 6581: 5996: 5466:(without prejudice of a separate article being written there) and the DAB at 5297: 4631: 3859: 3722: 3654: 3639: 3554: 3518: 3412: 3371: 2969: 2963: 2820: 2814: 2640: 2634: 2574: 2568: 2541: 2535: 2344: 2304: 2187: 2050: 1968: 1669: 1637: 1284: 1225: 1210: 1159:

and delete it. Or they could move it to the (disambiguation) title, and then

1129: 1101: 1042: 495: 487: 416: 204: 188: 8136:. Hi В²C, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my RM? Thanks, ‑‑ 7947:

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to

7686:

requires French accents, so the only explanation for this move is stalking.

7459:... your ability to search for say Einstein works one way but searching for 3251:. It is too risky. Especially, do not close anything against the !vote of 2778:. It was partly from this part of the RM discussion (my yellow highlights): 2710:

What is so wrong with that? I really was just trying to help, it was a bit

2170:(not the same thing, but part of the equation somehow). Note for comparison 857:

Take it easy on Julián Castro. You're coming across a bit too heavy-handed.

10760: 10484: 9763: 9702: 9658: 9334: 9304: 9277: 9262: 9187: 8806: 8628: 8590: 8183: 8013: 7887: 7527: 7147: 7143: 6813: 6691: 6659: 6589: 6560:

just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on

6493:

policy: "A silly rule made up so long ago". Nobody agreed with this either.

6425:

Thanks, SJ. Let's see if anyone else agrees with any of this assessment. --

6406:. You do not summarize the arguments but simply assert your own opinion. 6338: 6163: 6149: 6131: 6077: 6046: 5763: 5734: 5467: 5439: 5435: 5420: 5403: 5314: 5268: 4949: 4885: 4823: 4434: 4266: 3845: 3809: 3541: 3478: 3018: 2981: 2688: 2432: 2395: 2368: 1722:) 01:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC) I advise retracting that last sentence. -- 1526: 1437: 1254: 1250: 1184: 912: 858: 821: 787: 761: 746: 731: 683: 665: 491: 366: 331:

in Polish. Using Google translate, I'd guess a good English title might be

9762:

No. Effectively continuing a move discussion after closure is disruptive.

7029:

Conflicts are usually easy to reconcile, but sure. Thanks for the work! --

5333: 3731:

Knowledge:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Relisting_and_participating

2751:

So I was quite surprised by your reaction since the title I chose was the

2221:. Nature of the beast. The only thing we can do is fix it when we see it. 10186: 10133: 10120:

Your interpretation of SMALLDETAILS allowing disambiguation based on the

9961: 9949: 9945: 9794: 9767: 9737: 9458: 8942: 8792: 8663: 7545: 7113: 6357:

misunderstands YP, which may be expressed in terms of TC (TITLECHANGES):

5512: 5463: 5455: 5427: 5264: 4667: 4576: 4560: 4552: 4499: 4449: 4404: 4312: 4291: 4147: 4134: 3934: 3925: 3677: 3258:* Do not play the role of "presiding discussion chairperson", as you did 2925:. So what specific problem is your solution supposed to try to solve? -- 2552: 2271:

are not forks, as they refer to different things (hence the existence of

1455: 1381: 1236: 1086:

Talk:Julián Castro (Venezuelan politician)#Requested move 12 January 2019

1054: 10909:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

9480:

The airline probably has far more long-term significance than the horse.

9419:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

8868:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

8080:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

6969:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

10886:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

9646: 9396:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

9338: 9318: 9281: 9171: 9163: 9085: 8846:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

8058:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

7795: 7658: 7299: 7296:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming

6947:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5775: 5771: 5553: 5390:

It's taking incredible restraint to not pile on there. Wow. W T F. --

4994: 4908: 2183: 2035:

admin issuing a warning. And I did apologize for it, nevertheless. --

1797: 1112:

primary; there is not an equally clear consensus yet that the American

1076:", you broke the syntax. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. 1057:}} to fix the syntax, taking advantage of its built-in error checking. 628:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle)

155:

I changed the word “opinion“ to “advice from here“. Does that help? ––

10132:, is unique, as far as I know. Consider an example from SMALLDETAILS: 9876:

that formerly have "The Name" are normally indexed as "Name, The" per

9050:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Knowledge:CRITERIA

3244:* Do not close contested discussions. Stick with unanimous agreement. 2628:

action comes largely from griefers. Experienced editors and admins do

2465:

Knowledge:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Three_possible_outcomes

337: 10867: 10706:

myriads of articles, not to mention explicit endorsement in policy.

10675:

Talk:List of leaders of Georgia (country)#Requested move 11 July 2023

10190: 10173: 10137: 9881: 9377: 8828: 8040: 7197:

it requires a good understanding of Knowledge policies and guidelines

6929: 6398:

is not good. You have have locked jaw support of a rigid reading of

5799:

There was also a point that although there is an island called just "

5458:) would surely say that there was consensus to make "Time machine" a 4971:

https://www.williams-sonoma.com/recipe/baby-broccoli-with-garlic.html

4464:. Its possible for a topic usually considered "encyclopedic" such as 4441: 2364: 2264: 2179: 2175: 2155: 2087:

Don't count your dab before its hatched. I'm up to 6 entries now. --

1963: 1928: 1911: 1890: 1882: 1848: 1827: 1819: 1775: 1767: 1045:, a highly-respected sysop, but not, AFAIK, a frequent RM-submitter, 7513:. Clearly not the most sought topic on the dab page, but as we know 6041:

it is not harmless, and even they pointed out it is unnecessary and

4345:

You missed/overlooked the first/main part of my argument at Settle:

3619:

Thanks. Your compelling argument persuaded me to change my !vote. —

1098:

articles refering to the American had been linking to the Venezuelan

9622: 9484:

not most would probably type "Easy Jet" if looking for the airline.

9459: 8761: 7962: 7374: 7202:

If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the

6094:

says not to replace bare links to redirects with piped links (i.e.

5206:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019

5060: 5050: 4942:

https://www.greengiantfresh.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli-pouch/

4551:

for a user to use the term "unlikely" to search for articles about

4510:

which was useful. By contrast I would never even think of entering

4298: 4246: 4156: 4123: 3905:

Consider the current RM discussion of Justin Gabriel → PJ Black at

2734: 2650: 2163: 10524:. So what? That doesn’t address the primary topic question at all. 10148:, but the second can't be disambiguated from the first due to the 9766:

exists for a reason, as does the practice of closing discussions.

9333:

How else were uninvolved editors supposed to manifest themselves?

9149:, which I agree with) and does not prohibit the use of CONSISTENT; 5263:

surveys and I highly doubt that some new consensus will emerge at

4297:

If you Google "site:en.wikipedia.org unlikely", the top result is

4290:

If you Google "site:en.wikipedia.org freston", the top result is

3118:" The vast majority of his closes are uncontroversial and useful," 976:

Two 8 minute gaps then a 9 minute gap. Very strange coincidence. —

10551: 9957: 9718:

anyone can immediately recognize the subject from reading it. Re

9614: 9477:

The airline gets around 90 times the views which includes errors.

8333:

Not when the PAGs indicate the modified name is more favourable.

7594: 6110:. This seems like a desirable change according to the wording of 5872:

I don't think comma disambiguation is natural for the purpose of

5225:

Supervoting in your closing statement your personal radical ideas

4250: 4210: 4176:

are there and that while "Windows" redirects to the company both

3262:. Closers/relisters playing any role in the discussion is risky. 2277:

File:Terraced Houses, New Tredegar - geograph.org.uk - 531283.jpg

2218: 1694:. That doesn't excuse my reaction (referring to him as a "jerk") 1652:. That doesn't excuse my reaction (referring to him as a "jerk") 655:

When I unblocked you I suggested that you follow your PROPOSAL: '

10973:

Talk:Saint Paul (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 December 2023

10922:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 9432:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 8881:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 8093:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 7781:

I find it mildly annoying that you could not discern appeals to

7572:

I didn’t mention long term significance because I was asked how

7270:

should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at

6982:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 5402:

Yep, they agreed to have it reopened though so no harm done. —

5367:

User_talk:InvalidOS#Non_admin_closure_of_contentious_move_review

4967:

https://www.primalpalate.com/paleo-recipe/roasted-baby-broccoli/

4946:

https://josiesorganics.com/whole-vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/

4671:

heads with them, so I don't know the best way to go about this.

2162:(two different names for the same thing, so they're forks IMO), 10912:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

10880:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

9422:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

9390:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

9040:

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

8871:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

8083:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

7590: 7475:

know what to expect every time. That consistency has value. --

6972:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

5572:

article that requires disambiguation like Mercury and Georgia.

5549: 4636:

substantially greater enduring notability and educational value

4599: 4580: 4564: 4511: 4373: 3822:) used to do some very good relisting comments. I miss him. 2849:

I am not addressing problems, I see my proposal as a solution.

1167:

dab I created to help me do the necessary disambiguation work.

333: 10968:

Talk:Cheyenne (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 December 2023

9036: 8840:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

8699: 8052:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

7912: 7259: 6530:

of the seven supporters (not counting nom)" is compelling. --

5116:. But the article for Arlington High School is titled simply 4930:

http://www.lakesideorganic.com/vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/

2912:

is involved and feels administrative intervention is required.

2463:. Was that “no consensus” or “consensus to not move”? Refer 1174:

to be the page whose talk is hosting the discussion. You made

9253:

criterion, or that I did not consider the 5 criteria at all.

7702:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FQRHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA180

7460: 7378: 5767: 4491: 4479: 4262: 4258: 3236:

I think the undeniable problem is that many do not trust B2C.

2285:

File:WX05 RTZ 53813 Optare Solo, First, Bath (8529419978).jpg

2246: 2214: 10963:

Talk:Pierre (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 December 2023

10239:

per SMALLDETAILS, that doesn't mean the other one can be at

10202:

and you're close should address this point. Think about the

9967:

Community consensus is not at all clear, you appear to have

9129:

likely solely applies to bilateral relations articles (i.e.

4934:

https://www.markon.com/produce-guide/broccoli-baby-sweet-mfc

3532:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

111:

really believe this was an improper close, take it to MRV. —

10377:

Talk:List of leaders of Georgia#Requested move 11 July 2023

10375:

I just wanted to come here and discuss your closure of the

8937:, The template does not say to put an RM discussion on the 5786: 5723:

Consistent with other islands that have "Island" on the OS.

5639:. I don't know of other templates that need to be patched. 5311:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

4504:

Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#General

4485: 4428: 4421: 4254: 2566:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

2281:

File:Terraced housing, Kerry - geograph.org.uk - 634432.jpg

1623:

is not blocking you, he is not closing the ANI discussions.

1380:

yourself! Even I can mess up when I try that. Simply use {{

1183:

maybe I need to deal with the others doing, but not you. –

680:

Knowledge talk:Requested moves § Objective opinions, please

460:. Sometimes it's better to just move on to the next thing. 7341:. Every day, we see more and more surname PRIMARYREDIRECT 5770:" thus meaning "Island" isn't disambiguation. In addition 4963:

https://www.marthastewart.com/329040/sauteed-baby-broccoli

4322:. No other topic is sufficiently likely to be sought with 3249:

Talk:The_Independent_Group#Requested_move_19_February_2019

2461:

Talk:The_Independent_Group#Requested_move_19_February_2019

1682:"but this AN/I was started due to my terse reaction to an 9233:

Talk:Germany–Poland_border#Requested_move_15_October_2022

8801:, concerning bypassing RMS. That wouldn't happen to be - 8703: 8664: 5661:

if you don't think В²C's close needs further discussion.

5581: 4954:

https://www.rugbyfarm.com.au/produce/view/baby-broccoli/1

4535:

Frankly, I'm not following. Your two lists above titled "

4465: 2201:

What a cluster! This will take some time to figure out. —

7789:

in my !vote or anyone else's. Since nobody disputed the

7682:

This is standard housekeeping - you know full well that

7266:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect

6941:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

4383:] show that the president is now overwhelmingly likely. 3601:

Since you asked for a ping, could you please respond at

1416:

in the new one on top of where you cut it. And use your

1279:

Well, I did suggest the possibility in my RM statement:

10893: