User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 4

1015:

assertions he makes, like the one here about me not liking the "outcome" of that discussion, or where he says that if he "picked out every single little behavioural problem like this" (as if this were a "little behavioural problem"), "rolled them up together with every piece of wikilawyering and incivility that he's performed" (???), "and presented them as an RFCU, there would be little doubt about the outcome". I've never been blocked. I've been the focus of one AN/I, years ago, and it was unanimously rejected by every uninvolved person who looked at it. So what he's talking about is anyone's guess, but he sure seems to believe he knows exactly what he's talking him, and I'm sure it's quite real, in his head. I mean, such comments suggest a distorted view of reality, and you can't reason with someone operating in an alternate reality. --

2672:. Do you really need to be reminded of BRD? What makes you think it shouldn't apply here? In principle, if not in letter. I've seen other RM closes reverted, but never a revert reversed, at least not by the same closer. The community simply does not support unilateral decisions and actions like this. This is the fundamental point you really seem to not appreciate. This is why I'm calling for you to turn in your admin privileges. I wasn't kidding when I said I've never seen an admin abuse his privileges like you did today. The community should not tolerate this, because it would encourage other admins to try to do the same thing. 31: 2675:

pushing the envelope, and I'm sure you did not realize how way, way, way over the line you were. So you were prepared for an AN/I review, discussion and possible reversal, but you were not prepared for a revert of your close without discussion. That threw you. And here, instead of instinctively following BRD, you instead escalated, invoking your admin privs to lock the talk page... lock the talk page! Unthinkable! 3 minutes, 3 hours, whatever. To stifle ongoing discussion is

2230:

choices when confronted with evidence, then you are at risk of discarding accuracy in favor of procedure. Policy serves the evidence, not the other way around. If you are making decisions that aren't based on evidence, then you are making bad decisions. Choosing to follow an initial article creation guideline when dealing with variants is one thing, but it is a heuristic, nothing more. You're not supposed to follow it religiously, you're supposed to focus on getting the

2731: 2376: 375:

reverted. My one revert, at 5:56, was in part in the hopes that it would bring you to respond to my comment on the talk page, which you have. I have not reverted since then and am now discussing with you. Had you, for example, refrained from your 7:06 edit (which came after a talk page comment that basically said "my way is correct") and instead waited for a continued dialogue, you would not, to my mind, have been edit warring.

920:

picked out every single little behavioural problem like this, rolled them up together with every piece of wikilawyering and incivility that he's performed in his personal naming crusade, and presented them as an RFCU, there would be little doubt about the outcome. As I've said to him twice during this conversation, I don't really want to do that do an editor that is clearly capable of so much more, but if needs must, then...

2626:

the appropriate way to do it. Although two editors had gone to ANI, there was, at that time no clear consensus to overturn my close. A three hour hiatus to this RM, while it was decided if my closure was in order, seemed to me the simplest way to solve an issue. The point about my initial comment is that I can prefer something without agreeing that it is the correct solution for Knowledge. For example I prefer the word

411:

differ. We have to work together to find a consensus, which usually means compromise. Implicit in your comment is an "I know what's best, and I'll battle and break the rules if I have to in order to make the encyclopedia the way it should be." That's also a problem, and I hope you can see why and in general take on board these comments going forward. As to this specific issue I'll consider the matter closed for now. --

1973:

debate, which is also a Fox News debate, so I'm thinking he's invited to all of them. The link I put in my comment said that all the candidates had been invited to the December 3 debate, which I'm guessing means all the candidate except Gary Johnson, sadly. Anyway, point of all this is, I didn't mean to step on your toes, and feel free to change anything back however you want with no hard feelings. Cheers.

2256:

The first is that British English is unclear about whether it favors the h spelling or not. Secondly, the legitimacy of the British variant is at issue, as the original variant of the article was American English (the evidence for that is also trivial - just look at the original version of the article), and the title, then the variant, was changed, for no apparent reason, much less a good one.

1318: 115:, but it is a form of edit warring and would already be blockable since 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I have no interest in getting you blocked (and of course would not do so myself as I'm involved), but if anyone comes by to revert you (I will not for now, discussion is preferred) I strongly advise you to refrain from reverting to your preferred version yet again. 2011:

object to moving it back to the original title ("Yogurt") because then it will be at "Yogurt" instead of their preferred "Yoghurt". And each time someone proposes moving it back, enough of those who prefer "Yoghurt" show up to justify an admin finding "no consensus" in favor of the move. That's the short story. The full summary of the story is here:

2668:

forgotten if it had ended when someone reverted you close. Let's just say you certainly had enough in the tank with me for that outcome if it had gone that way. But that's not what happened, of course. After your close was reverted, with the quite appropriate edit summary of "outrageous", by the way, you went and reverted that revert,

2679:

to the way WP operates. It has to be. Discussion is all we've got. I understand you thought it would be fine because discussion could continue at AN/I which is where you thought it should occur, but what makes you think you're the arbiter of any of that? It's the arrogance that's the problem here.

2259:

Now you seem to be suggesting that we should be looking at evidence in sources to answer these questions. I'm just saying that for these particular questions it's rather unconventional to look to evidence in sources for the answers. However, you may be trying to answer some questions for which that

2010:

On one side you have those with a personal preference for "Yogurt" who feel justified in having it moved back because that was the original title, and because there has never been consensus support for the "Yoghurt" title. On the other side you have those with a personal preference for "Yoghurt" who

473:

Boldly--and it weren't that bold--making a change to something is completely allowable, and when it's followed up with a lengthy comment, as I did, it's more than okay. You reverted without responding to that comment, it was your second revert (the previous having been of an edit like mine), and then

392:

The key here is for all concerned parties to leave off reverting--even if it's on the "wrong" version, which it always is for someone--and talk about it. I did that after just one revert, but you reverted my edits twice, after having reverted another editor who made a similar change just before that.

2179:

of my decisions based on the evidence, and every good decision involves looking directly at this evidence. Knowledge is not an echo chamber where we make decisions based solely on policies and guidelines. Those things exist to help lead us to the right decision. They never point to a single answer

1133:

I wouldn't worry about Black Kite. He pretends he is a stickler for civility, but he edits and takes admin actions in an extremely aggressive and abrasive manner, and seems to have a hard time admitting that his own actions often contribute to more incivility. Furthermore, he is a bully who is not

978:

You're not kidding about him going on naming crusades (Sega Genesis and Mega Drive certainly makes me view him that way), but as such I have him on my watch list, and I see no incivility through hiding that particular conversation. I know nothing else, and certainly can't be bothered to read through

410:

Finally, your statement that you're willing to risk violating a policy "to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers" is concerning. Your thoughts on what make the article better and my thoughts on that (and a third, fourth, and fifth persons) very often

352:

Yes, you were edit warring. You were not "trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion," you were reverting changes that you did not like, and three times you overrode the (very related) changes of two other editors. The fact that you said things on the talk page during this time is not evidence

329:

I appreciate your concern, but I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I was edit warring. Edit warring "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I didn't do

2762:

I think that it would suit everyone best if you didn't even mention nationality in any capacity if it can be helped. I think it's becoming a distraction, and just allowing editors in favor of keeping the article title have something to carry on about. I'm not disputing that there may be nationalism

2667:

do you think you are? What you are saying here is that, while allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong, and if that's agreed to in an AN/I discuss which could take days if not weeks, everyone must presume that you're right to close. But, that said, it could have been forgiven and soon

2658:

too quickly. You either didn't realize, or didn't care, that the RM had been started by a seasoned but previously uninvolved editor, and many other seasoned and previously uninvolved editors had contributed. To silence them like that is beyond the pale. To make it worse, this is what you said in

2251:

Now, regarding evidence... evidence in the absence of a particular question to answer is useless. In criminal law, the relevant questions are, who is guilty? Or is this particular person guilty? Or, what was he killed with? Etc., etc. And we use evidence to answer those questions. Similarly, in

504:

If it helps, feel free to ask any admin at random to read through the above discussion and let you know if what you were doing is considered edit warring. Obviously I'm not getting through to you and I've already spent too much time arguing about something that shouldn't need this much explanation.

2674:

Look, I get what happened. You read the earlier AN/I, came to the talk page, and decided, because it was so soon since the last RM, that closing this now was not an unreasonable thing to do, especially considering the unwritten 6-month rule, etc. Your edit summary indicated you realized you were

2625:

the usual way of dealing with an uninvolved administrators close an RM prematurely, that someone disagrees with is to take it to an ANI, not for parties to the RM to revert an univolved administrators close. If editors involved in this discussion wished to overturn my decision that would have been

2255:

In this case the specific question is, shall the title be "Yogurt" or "Yoghurt"? Normally, the answer to such a question is based on the very trivial evidence of what the English variant of the article is. In this case the English variant is British English. But there are two issues with that.

2229:

I can't speak to precedent, but all of my decisions are based on evidence, not on preconceived beliefs like policies or guidelines. Decision making involves a process of which policy and guidelines only direct one to an answer, but don't determine it. If you use a policy framework to filter your

2083:

is that if usage in WP went by majority usage, then all usage in WP would be U.S. usage, because the population in the U.S. is so high relative to other English variant users. Therefore, we go by the criteria at ENGVAR, which includes going back to the variant of the first non-stub version of the

919:

Which would be fine if B2C didn't keep doing it when he didn't like the outcome of the conversation; at which point it's effectively censorship. I was half tempted to start an RFCU on his continued behaviour like this; and this sort of thing makes me want to actually spend the time to do it. If I

435:

continued discussion, per BRD. But you didn't D, you reverted my revert! What's up with that? And you had the gall to suggest to me that engage on the talk page! Also, I still would not have reverted your edit, except that now there was another editor who apparently agreed with inclusion of the

430:

Again, you reverted without any discussion whatsoever. I did not. Had you joined me in the ongoing discussion on the talk page instead of editing in the first place, that would have been better. But whatever, you decided to edit; that's fine. But since you Boldly edited without engaging in the

332:

Again, the first revert was explained, and no one, including you, disagreed, so that was a resolved issue. I did my best to engage in discussion, but you reverted my edit without discussion. When another editor noted how BLP explicitly supported inclusion of the material in question, and no one,

291:

But that's very much a side issue and I realize now I should not have even brought up the talk page issue without looking at it more closely. It's good that you are engaging on the talk page, but it does not give you license to make three reversion in two hours, reverting two editors as you do so.

281:

As to the talk page, I missed your 5:47 comment which came as I was typing my first comment, which I made immediately after the first edit. My point was slightly different than the preceding discussion so I started a new section explaining my edit which shortened the text--nothing nefarious there,

2688:

in a conflict in which you're involved? That's the epitome of abuse of power. The only reason your continued lack of appreciation for how out of line you were (as revealed above) is not making me even more convinced that you should not be an admin is because I was already 100% convinced, and so

2971:

and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also

2810:

2708:

is another example of you seeming to accuse someone of ulterior motives. The discussion on that page is quite nasty, and this isn't helping. Notice how GTBs response to you was to deny being a partisan, rather than to address the point you were really trying to make about blocks? See how this is

2488:

2420:

2098:

OK, we are using the word "majority" to mean something different. I'm not using it to mean majority usage by speakers. I'm using it to mean majority usage by a wide criterion: industry, public, media, formal, casual, academic, etc. For me, gauging U.S. usage would only be one consideration of

1883:

1815:

1747:

1679:

1611:

1543:

1445:

1358:

1263:

1195:

552:

336:

But, yeah, with respect to 3RR, I'm technically on the edge. I guess I'm willing to risk that in trying to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers, and in compliance with everything supported by broad consensus. Are you one of those wiki lawyers?

1014:

Let's not blow this out of proportion. I just thought it was a pointless discussion that had nothing to do with the article and so hid it as is often and regularly done in situations like this. I can't begin to speak about Black Kites motivations or purpose, except to say I'm often baffled by

999:

B2C's attempts to limit Blackkite's disruptive behavior by hiding an off-topic conversation is not uncivil, though Blackkite's threat was. Furthermore, this clearly isn't a case of B2C not liking the outcome of an argument. Blackkite's bad faith edits and lies with this regard belie his true,

2544:

I understand that there is a vote on the yogurt article to change the title. Ive followed to argument closly and would love to support the change but ive never supported a change before so i dont really know how. If you could explain to me how, that would be great. By the way, im a fan of your

1972:

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a few changes over there, but I didn't notice your comment for your last change. So, some of my changes are probably wrong. I can't read the link you provided right now, but I read another news story saying Huntsman was going to be in the December 15

374:

So, for example, I made one change to the article which cut down on the length and combined sections (note: this was not a revert, e.g. a simple "undo" of the last edit, it was a new edit that altered the existing text). I then left a note on the talk page, but while doing that you had already

272:. Those are all straight reverts and you did three in 2 hours. Had you done one more it would have been a 3RR violation, hence my warning, though even with those three you are clearly edit warring. This is a simple fact and it is also a problem and something for which you can be blocked. 2653:

PBS, I hear you, and I'm really sad to see this, and I've said everything I have with extra consideration given due to our history, but this is really that bad. I have never ever seen anyone prematurely close an RM discussion several days and dozens of !votes into it. You took action

2213:

This is why I'm asking if you know of any examples in the specific area of deciding which spelling variant to use, where that decision was made based on evidence. I don't know why this is difficult. You either know of such examples, or you don't. Off hand, I can't think of any.

1162:

He has frequently been criticized for overly harsh punishments. Additionally, I have met with his bullying, threats and incivility first hand. You saying it is untrue without any diligence or inquiries into my reasoning speaks volumes of how fairly you are willing to view my

478:

discussing on the talk page, that's reverting and typing on the talk page. Once you responded to the initial talk page comment I made, I reverted no more, and had only reverted once, which is an example of avoiding edit warring. I can't explain the difference any better than

457:

we'll have something useful and productive to talk about and work out. But if you want to base the removal of content sourced in RS on personal taste or opinion, it's going to be very difficult to find any common ground whatsoever, much less actually come to an agreement.

2210:

decided by looking at any evidence. Most often the variant used is whatever the native variant is of whoever happens to create the article, and so it remains. Once the variant is so set, changing the variant is discouraged. No evidence of any kind is normally part of

2763:

at play, and I'm not assuming you are acting in bad faith, I'm just saying that if we could drop it, it would probably be best for everyone involved. Maybe even edit or retract your previous statements, just so that they don't have a "bad guy" to beat up any longer. -

474:

you reverted a third time after replying to my comment and not even bothering to wait for a reply. In total, you made three reverts while leaving exactly one note for one of the people you were reverting on the talk page, but without waiting for a response. That's

2248:

All this talk about policy and guidelines in this particular discussion is puzzling. I generally agree with you on all that, but I don't understand how it is relevant or at issue here. So, maybe I'm missing something, but all I can do is ignore it, at least for

1044:

Sadly, I think you're only actually deluding yourself if you don't know what I'm talking about, or you simply don't read comments - there are plenty on this page apart from mine - which don't fit with what you believe is right. I'll say it again - the "D" in

934:

has no outcome, or point for that matter, much less an outcome I don't like. That's why I hid it. I and others do that all the time. Anyway, if you think there is something there that makes it important to be unhidden for some reason, suit yourself.

2605:

B2C often we are on the same side in a RM debate, but sometimes we disagree. I don't think I have ever accused you of bad faith and I am disappointed to see you making such innuendos against me. To the best of my knowledge you have no reason to do so.

1503:

It's welcome to see someone aiming to resolve the conflict here. In the new summary section, I've removed the statement about the original version being written in American English: its use of "litre" surely better fits with British English (following

2991:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 2830:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 2508:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 2440:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1903:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1835:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1767:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1699:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1631:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1563:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1465:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1378:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1283:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 1215:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 572:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned 301:

I'm not really interested in debating this with you as the policy is quite cut and dried, as are your three reverts, I'm simply giving you a warning about edit warring, so I hope we can leave it there and instead discuss the content issues.

1134:

afraid to use his power to intimidate others, even when the alleged infractions are incredibly minor. It's best to just recognize he's one of the people that makes the culture on Knowledge very difficult to navigate and stay away from him.

2737:

Good advice. Excellent point. You're absolutely right. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the kind of constructive criticism that improves Knowledge. If you see me blowing it again, please do not hesitate to alert me. Thanks.

2188:. I understand that you are using and relying on a guideline to shoehorn the outcome into a nice little hole, but I take a more fluid approach. I go where the evidence goes, wherever it might take me, and the evidence does not support 1508:) or Canadian English (following common use)? I've also removed the mention of the 2004-10-29 spelling change: note "flavored" was untouched by that edit, and I don't think it's particularly relevant for deciding on whether to use that 2704:

Without addressing anything you say here regarding PBS' actions, I want to note that his point remains—you seem to assume everyone on that page really cares about the spelling of Yogurt, despite their insistence to the contrary.

706:

Sorry! I don't see this as a high priority, as Mega Drive is certainly a reasonable synonym for Sega Genesis. But, ideally, for the sake of consistency, they should all be moved. I suppose that means a multi-move RM request.

2613:), where it had been mooted that at least one person should be topic banned "Would a topic ban from yoghurt and/or page moves/article titles be of value here? Note this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer." I came to 1730: 2307:" is the best summary of evidence from either "side". I have come to the conclusion that Yogurt makes more sense based on a preponderance of the evidence (I was the starter of the "Arguments in favor / against" table). 2922:

I third the motion. The RM appears destined to be affirmed. I suggest a fine mixed drink. My favorite is Kern’s ‘Guava’ Fruit Nectar, a shot of vodka, and a good heaping spoonful of Coco López Cream of Coconut.

1594: 898:

This isn't really the same thing as removing someone's comments. This is much more like...enclosing an off topic conversation in a spoilers box. It's not a big deal, people can still click to reveal the

505:

Just don't be surprised if you run into trouble with some similar situation in the future--3 reverts in two hours when the dispute is a basic content matter is a problem, basically every single time. --

445:

Now, what does the community at large think is best in this situation, or in any particular situation? Well, our best indicator is what has been written in policy and guidelines, which are supposed to

2638:

you will find I opposed the move to petrol. In your last retort you are sill implying my motives were base, I would appreciate it if you would reconsider whether such an implication is warranted. --

1428: 453:

So, if you can show me (not here, but at the article talk page) how broad consensus - as reflected in any of these relevant policies and guidelines - indicates this section should be culled,

2184:

is not the most common or preferred spelling. I am more interested in seeing a single source that says it is. Since we don't have any, I am genuinely curious why the article is not titled

2180:

by themselves. The hard data and evidence is paramount, more specifically, what the sources say about a subject matters the most. In this instance, the wide variety of sources say that

1793: 1965: 241:

So I'm perplexed at your above comment... "all without discussing your reverts"! I discussed ALL of my reverts! It was you who was ignoring the talk page while you were reverting! --

2337: 1763: 1732: 1657: 265:

Let me come back to why I come here, namely your edit warring, which you pointedly do not admit to (I did notice that!). Here are the three edits I am talking about that you did

535: 2360:

Heh, thanks, but Roux is pretty cool, too, and I've definitely had my disagreements with him. We all have bad days, I guess. B2C has been just fine, so no complaints here. :)

2403: 1491: 1341: 1985: 1966: 1798: 1627: 1596: 2999:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 2838:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 2516:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 2448:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1911:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1843:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1775:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1707:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1639:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1571:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1473:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1386:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1291:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 1223:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 580:. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. 292:

That is my point, and I hope you can simply accept that you cannot do that in the future, and that further reverting in a 24 hour period will likely result in a block.

1178: 879:

do that again. If you can't cope with a civil agrument, don't get into one to begin with, and then try to hide it when you don't like the outcome. I hope this is

761:. Coincidentally, all the articles originally started with these names, apart from the Variations article which was split off from the main Sega Genesis article.-- 598: 2192:. I rely on policies and guidelines to make my point only when the evidence is weak or confusing. But at the end of the day, it is the sources that matter more. 1934: 1866: 1526: 2466: 1404: 282:

people start new sections all the time as you no doubt know, and my edit summary mentioned the talk page as the place to go for further explanation of the edit.

2793: 1861: 2987: 2956: 1960: 1948: 1241: 2903:

For some reason I am reminded about the joke of a head that goes to the pub and ends up getting run over by a bus after beer somehow made them grow a body.

2698: 1929: 1589: 859:

redact another user's comments on a talk page where they are not clearly vandalism. Fair criticism is clearly not that. A repeat of that will see you at

2856: 1662: 1461: 1430: 111:, all without discussing your reverts on the talk page (which you are doing now, I'll be replying there after this). That does not violate the letter of 118:

Two other editors have objected to the length of the material you want to keep in and that means you need to work with them rather than edit warring. --

1725: 519: 467: 425: 346: 316: 250: 2338:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yoghurt%2Cyogurt%2CYoghurt%2CYogurt&year_start=1940&year_end=2009&corpus=0&smoothing=3

1944: 2747: 2724: 1108: 1059: 959: 889: 3017: 2534: 2391: 2269: 2243: 2223: 2201: 2170: 2152: 2134: 2120: 2093: 2074: 2060: 2046: 2024: 1172: 1068: 1065: 994: 926: 914: 837: 813: 736: 716: 236: 1335: 1039: 235:, respond to something I wrote on the talk page, and I'll address that there too, but even that was after you posted this comment here at 23:22 2946: 2787: 2355: 776: 701: 2954: 2915: 2471: 2369: 1009: 2932: 2778:

Yeah, I've tried to explain it, but they still twist it into being an attack. I suppose it's not important enough to continue. Thanks. --

979:

pages of paragraphs looking for it. Anyway, this is the last time I'm sticking my nose into this, as I thought a neutral party might help.--

189: 164:. This was not challenged by anyone, including not by you, even though 30 minutes later at 21:42 you went and removed much of this content 162: 2621:

page, I made it three hours long, so that an agreement at ANI could be reached on whether my initial closure was appropriate. As I said on

2973: 2812: 2490: 2422: 2206:

The decision about which language variant to use in an article (including the title) that is not about a region-specific topic is usually

1885: 1817: 1749: 1681: 1613: 1545: 1447: 1360: 1309: 1265: 1197: 554: 568: 537: 132: 2897: 2867: 1325: 680: 188:) contributed to that discussion, noting that BLP explicitly provides for adding exactly such material, as long as it is properly cited 660: 2879: 1521: 270: 268: 266: 165: 155: 2436: 2405: 1374: 1343: 1423: 2328: 2004: 2706: 2647: 2322: 1246: 663: 1831: 1800: 1211: 1180: 629: 1069:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&action=historysubmit&diff=462040768&oldid=462039987

438:

Anyway, WP is much much bigger than my opinion or your opinion. What I think is best or what you think is best or what any

616:, it might make more sense to grab the complete text from the policy on article titles, which you'll find in the middle of 442:

editor thinks is best is immaterial. What matters is what the community at large agrees is best. That's true consensus.

2343:

Also, Viriditas seems level headed, if you want to be a douche towards someone, do it to someone more deserving like ROUX.

1156: 1053:

stand for "discuss endlessly regardless of any conclusion reached, until every else gets so irritated that they give up".

2861: 2012: 1899: 1868: 1559: 1528: 634: 201:, at 21:48, again noting the ongoing discussion on the talk page in the edit summary in which you were not participating. 2661:" If anyone reverts this revert, unless there is agreement at ANI to do so, I will take further administrative action.)" 869: 3004: 2843: 2826: 2795: 2521: 2453: 1916: 1848: 1780: 1712: 1644: 1576: 1517: 1478: 1391: 1296: 1228: 585: 515: 421: 312: 128: 2772: 1143: 140:

My first revert was at 21:09 and that was about whether the allegations belonged at all based on being "unprovable".

2234:

answer, and that involves more than one approach. Taking a wide sample of the evidence is one step along this path.

640: 609: 2719: 2595: 102: 2252:

WP, we need to know what questions we're trying to answer in order to know what kind of evidence to look at. Yes?

2554: 1981: 1695: 1664: 94: 2319:

Online etymology dictionary (maybe to consolidate with the michael quinion entry under an 'etymology' heading?):

2893: 2643: 1409: 742: 222:

everything I'd already discussed at 21:13 and 21:47 and start a new section. So I engaged there too, at 22:57

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2982: 2821: 2499: 2431: 2304: 1894: 1826: 1758: 1690: 1622: 1554: 1513: 1456: 1369: 1274: 1206: 648: 563: 233: 223: 205: 196: 138:

My username is Born2cycle. Please check the talk page again before you say I reverted without discussion.

185: 786: 151: 931: 741:

I have no idea how to do a multi move RM request. However, I can certainly help you out with the names.

2125:

Do you know of any precedent for deciding on an article title spelling based on criteria like that? --

1990: 781:

Well, I can give you the fish, or teach you to fish. Actually, it's pretty easy, and all explained at

750: 652: 226: 212: 199: 38: 2639: 2567: 2504: 2473: 2635: 659:

may need to be changed to be inline with the Sega Genesis article, per previous changes. Such as

3007:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 2942: 2912: 2846:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 2783: 2743: 2694: 2591: 2524:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 2456:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 2387: 2265: 2219: 2166: 2130: 2089: 2065:

OK, then we have a minority position. Why would we name an article based on a minority usage?

2056: 2020: 1995:

I really have no idea why this has gone on for eight years. Can you briefly explain it to me?

1919:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1851:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1783:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1715:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1647:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1579:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1481:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1394:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1299:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 1231:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 822:

about getting the article moved to Sega Genesis, so please follow up with the follow up work.--

712: 625: 617: 588:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. 511: 463: 417: 342: 308: 246: 124: 2610: 2329:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=yoghurt&searchmode=none

754: 256:

Yes, I obviously know your username, as I am on your user talk page. Surely you realize that.

154:) removed all of the material with edit summary "Unprovable allegations have no place here." 2323:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=yogurt&searchmode=none

2715: 1332: 1091: 1054: 1022: 942: 921: 884: 864: 796: 603: 353:

of trying to resolve the disagreement--in order for that to be true you would also have to

159:"they have sworn affidavits from witnesses who corroborate the story - it's not unprovable" 47: 17: 2981: