User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

another local consensus issue

See Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Most 'do not include' votes cite the policy, which is pretty clear - if the subject requests, do not include. The subject has requested, at least twice now. Most 'include' votes cite other, less-directly-relevant policies, or forward arguments not found in any policy. Trend is to include, but it will be interesting to see how closer deals with this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin close on a topic you have taken a position on

Did you forget that you had expressed your position against the two commas, and therefore are ineligible to do a non-admin close? Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case I think it was OK. There was a broader discussion going on elsewhere, which will determine the result of the discussion B2C closed, so it would have been inappropriate to make any change or reach any conclusion other than "no consensus". BDD had already called for a procedural close. Somebody had to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not as if we are short of people who can close the discussion. For someone as polemic with entrenched positions, it's certainly very debatable whether B2C would have been the best person to close any discussion on page moves. Just my penny's worth. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I did? Where? --B2C 05:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember taking a position on it, and even looked at WT:PLACE before I closed this. Regardless, any problem with my reasoning and decision? --B2C 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem. Please revert yourself and let someone uninvolved have a look. The close should at least acknowledge that there's a big consensus at the RFC that it needs to be moved, one way or the other. You pretty much said so yourself at WT:AT#Do article titles that include proper names need to follow standard grammatical rules? when you wrote "If disambiguation is necessary, as is apparently the case here, I suggest parentheses: Rochester metropolitan area (New York) and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). But I also think a strong argument could be made per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS for no dab page, and to use Rochester metropolitan area for the one in New York, and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). --B2C 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)". Your close at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Requested move 2 did not acknowledge this reality. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. This RM proposal was specifically about whether to have one or two commas in that title (Rochester, New York metropolitan area → Rochester, New York, metropolitan area). I had no position or preference on that particular issue, and the statement you quoted above was not related to that question. If you think my statement somehow demonstrates a preference for either "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" or "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", please explain which one and why. I don't disagree that there is a local consensus at that RFC to move that title, but I just don't see consensus basis to move it to this particular proposed title (or any other particular title for that matter). --B2C 06:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You also specifically rejected my two-comma suggestion with "I don't know of any precedence or reason to use 'common natural sentence form' in article titles. --B2C 00:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)". This seems to have been a specific denial of the natural grammatical form, which is what this RM was about. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I always object to you doing non-admin closes of RMs, because you have a strongly-fought position on titling theories and are always chipping away at the WP:TITLE to make policy reflect your way. RMs should be closed by people who are more neutral. In this case, you closed it without acknowledging the obvious consesnsus at the related RFC that it should be moved, and the issue that remains open is to what. In light of this, letting someone who could either see the answer, or someone open enough to relist and wait, close it would have been better all around. Now, we just have to start yet another one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You object to almost everything I do or say, period. You seem to be incapable of remaining objective when I'm involved. That's not my problem, it's yours. In this case, I stand by my close as fair, reasonable and objective. I had no horse in that race. It's sour grapes in spades to stretch so far as to object on the grounds of who closed a given discussion, rather than whether the close reasoning was sound, fair, objective and reasonable.

As to not acknowledging the consensus at a related RFC - there is no obligation for any closer to mention that. RM proposals are often about issues that are discovered elsewhere; I don't recall any RM closer ever mentioning such related/separate discussions. There is little if any precedent for what you're demanding (once holding trying to hold me to a standard that nobody else is ever expected to achieve).

Consensus needs to develop through discussion for a title that is supported by consensus. Consensus is simply not there yet, and I think that's plain for anyone to see. --B2C 20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The objection based on who did the close is valid in this case, since you had commented specifically on the renaming of this article, in another discussion. The fact that you forgot, and didn't acknowledge the rest of the discussion about it, doesn't make it OK. You really should not be doing RM closing; you always have a dog in the race. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RM closing styles

Hi B2C,

I am just reviewing your close, at Talk:Communion_(Christian)#Requested_move_2. On substance, it seems a fine close, thanks for doing it.

I have some wishes, applying here to you and to many others:

(1) I wish that non-admins would use the {{RMnac}} template.

(2) I wish that "Do not move" closes would specify whether the closer is reading a "consensus to not move", which raises the burden on a later RM nominator, and a "no consensus" discussion. Your second sentence is good, but specifying this in the bold is better. It makes it easier to review old RM discussions.

(3) I wish that closes would record the above in the edit summary, specifically that the edit is a RM Close, and how closed. It greatly helps when reviewing through watch-listing, page histories or user contributions.

Would these be agreeable to you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) When I discovered RMnac I started using it, and I thought there was consensus support for non-admins to use it. But when I tried to say that at WP:RMCI [1], it was reverted[2]. So, unless consensus changes about using RMnac, I'm not too keen on using it any more. I think that revert (and other examples) reflects a shift in consensus in the last 6 months about NACs vs. admin closes, moving towards the view that the difference between them is practically insignificant.

(2) Unless the close result says "no consensus" it reflects consensus finding. So, Do not move means "consensus is do not move". That's how I read it, and that's what I mean by it. If you know of any examples of where a closer used "do not move" in a "no consensus" situation, please let me know. I don't think I've ever seen that. I don't think I've ever seen an RM closed with consensus to not move. But if you think that's what closers should be using, I suggest making a proposal at WT:RM to modify WP:RMCI accordingly. I note that those instructions are not clear on what phrases to use in what situations - that seems to be an area for improvement.

The phrase I have an issue with is, "no consensus to move". Does that mean "there is no consensus, so don't move"? Or does it mean "there is consensus to not move"? I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:RM#Does_.22no_consensus_to_move.22_mean_.22consensus_to_not_move.22.3F. Most people seem to think it means "no consensus to move or not move, so that's how I'm interpreting it, but I'm still not using it myself.

(3) I agree I should have noted "RM close" in the edit summary (or something to that effect). I'll try to remember next time. But, again, "do not move" in the edit summary[3] means "consensus is to not move". --B2C 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (1) I wasn't aware of those edits and reverts. Interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Relisting of Talk:Journey Through the Decade#Requested move 04 August 2013

B2C, how does an RM with four opposers making policy-based arguments override a nominator's opinion (the third time around!). If you support the move, just say so. It's very difficult to see how a relisting was appropriate there. A rationale should have been provided. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This one really speaks clearly to the question of sources, case-by-case reasons, and the weight given to "policy-based arguments". It speaks to a simmering debate, involving at least me and B2C, on the role of policy, descriptive vs prescriptive, are the many policy/subpolicy policy pages really representative, were they ever meant to be binding, are the active participants at policy/subpolicy pages representative of the community and/or representing project goals? B2C had just poked at WT:AT, and given that, and the significance of the case as I state, discouraging a close today is a good idea. Agreed, a more articulate statement saying that this is really a pertinent case and that he had just increased its adverting, would have been preferable to "relist" edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything would be preferably to B2C messing with RMs. If he had left it, it would have been closed and gone soon enough. It's meritless. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon, clearly I disagree about the meritlessness of discussion. At the very least, if you are right, I will learn something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can relist for any reason. I think I read that in an AN/I or at WT:RM.

In this case SmokeyJoe is exactly right regarding the reason, but I didn't want to say anything there to avoid influencing anything one way or another. --B2C 01:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I have undone my close of this move discussion. Reverting the page to the old version caused one of your comments about my close to disappear. You can restore it if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It got closed again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't format the relist template right and now the requested move has been closed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI you might be interested in

This ANI report (opened by PantherLeapord) refers to a recent move review that you participated in. I am posting here because you (alongside SmokeyJoe) are the two commentators whom requested an explanation from the original closer without following up. It would be nice if you can comment at the ANI report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sure this belongs on one of your lists, somewhere... Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013

1. first time I've seen a snow no-consensus close (but maybe that's just me)
2. strongest repudiation of commonname, well, that I've _ever_ seen, in favor of subject's preference

Anyway, interested in your thoughts. What does this mean for commonname? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First, there is the whole BLP issue, which I think in general is taken too far in all kinds of contexts (not just titles). The WP:BLP Zealot essay addresses that issue. Second, here we have the trans issue about which many people feel very strongly. The strong emotion combined with the ability to rationalize using the BLP hammer will trump any policy. In this case the policy casualty just happens to be COMMONNAME. So, I don't think this means anything at all for COMMONNAME in particular. --B2C 21:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with your argument, of course. I think this deserves another look along with a wider participation. This person became notable before the change. She has done nothing notable after the change. --B2C 21:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bikes May Use Full Lane

The article Bikes May Use Full Lane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable road sign

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dough4872 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bikes May Use Full Lane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bikes May Use Full Lane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikes May Use Full Lane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dough4872 02:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bikes May Use Full Lane.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bikes May Use Full Lane.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Blurred Lines 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bicycles May Use Full Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenn Dale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with collapse function

Hi, B2C! I have often seen you use the "collapse" function so maybe you can help me figure out what I am doing wrong. I wanted to collapse the barnstars on my talk page, and did so using the "cob" template. For some reason the page index disappeared into the "collapse" box along with the barnstars, and I can't figure out how to get it out. Can you tell me how to get the index back? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done [4] --B2C 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt help! So what was needed was a section heading outside of/above the collapse? --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It appears the index is generated after the first heading. If the first heading is inside a collapse, the index is also generated inside the collapse. (what about that rain!) --B2C 23:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rain? What rain? 0;-D Well, yeah, it did sprinkle a little. But It Never Rains in Southern California, you know that! --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject naming conventions

Hi B2C,

Just wondering where I can find info about WikiProject naming conventions. Specificly I am looking for info about capitalizing names – I see some w-projects with a name such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads (all caps) while others such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink follow the wiki stadard. Click Category:WikiProjects in The Signpost by name for more (inconsistent) examples.

Since you offered I wonder if you could reply on my talkpage. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful comments at the WP:COI talk page. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding WP:PLACE

Hello! You are one of the contributors who edited the text of this policy, so I'd like to ask your opinion about the way of application of WP:PLACE guideline. More exactly, I tried to apply the general guideline no.2 for at least 3 alternative names, but some editors (all of them being Hungarians who support the keeping in the first phrase of the alternative Hungarian name) are claiming that this is not "a widely accepted approach". Please submit a comment at Talk:Alba Iulia to help us to settle the dispute. Thanks in advance! 79.117.183.29 (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that 79.117.183.29 has also been contributing to the article on Chernivtsi, which used to be part of Romania before it was annexed by the Ukrainian SSR in 1940. Whereas with Alba Iulia, 79.117.183.29 believes that names in other languages should be removed from the introduction, he/she has the opposite point of view with respect of Chernivtsi. He/she can't have it both ways.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Toddy1 Nice WP:HOUNDING from your side. How about minding your own business? There is no contradiction here, smartass. If you'll take some glasses, you'll be able to see that User:IVMD, in a chauvinist gesture, removed exclusively the alternative Romanian name from the lead of Chernivtsi article, keeping the Russian, German, Polish and Yiddish ones (if he had removed all of them, I would have agreed). Besides, he removed the name of the major without providing any evidential source for his claim.

My initial thought at Alba Iulia article was that the alternative names should be removed from the lead and be kept only in the Names section, but when I saw that there are objectors I gave up my intention and restored the alternative names in the first sentence at least until a consensus is reached. It would make no sense to start now removing alternative names from the first sentence of other articles too (e.g. at Chernivtsi), as long as there is no consensus about the way of application of this policy.

Do you understand now, or I need to draw a schema for you? 79.117.183.29 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yoghurt

Rather than continue where it's completely off topic, at this point: It does indeed strike me as arrogant to view yourself as a better arbiter of consensus (ie: whether there really were sufficient voices/!votes in unison with you) than every closing moderator up until you finally got your way. How is that not a complete denial of the possibility that you could have had a flawed argument, or at least (as you accuse me) of failing to convince enough of your peers, for years. Consensus clearly found the variant rule insufficiently compelling multiple times, for whatever reason. To my recollection, you also did not discuss the merits of the IAR compromise directly, and there was no substantial conversation about it (certainly not years worth, as it was not the subject of your biannual calls for !vote), so I don't think you can comment on its lasting appeal, since it didn't reach much of an audience in the first place. (I didn't bring it up again because I didn't have the stomach to keep arguing the H or No-H point, and my very attempt to compromise was was ignored because you wanted not only to win but to win on principle.) And one can certainly be tempted to blame you for clinging to it every few months without adding new information or trying a new tactic, where the old ones had failed (repeatedly). So yeah, the extra years were indeed a real shame. - BalthCat (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. My argument there was primarily practical (to end the silly debate). Not sure what principle you believe I was defending or whatever.

I do believe almost all of those closers erred in not giving more weight to broad community consensus as reflected in policy, guidelines and practices, rather than relying almost entirely on the opinions of those who happened to be participating, and effectively just counting their !votes. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, oh well.

I probably did not discuss the IAR "compromise" directly, for I thought little of it. But it's not my fault that others didn't either.

I don't know what you mean about my biannual calls for !vote. It wasn't I that started all those RMs. --B2C 01:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

You were involved in a move request at this article. A second request to move this article from United States v. Microsoft Corp. has been opened. A previous move request was closed 45 days ago with the move to the current title. Interested editors may weigh in at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Municipal bonds - help please

Hi B2C,

I believe Municipal bonds should be named something like American municipal bonds since it is definitely an American-centric, if not an exclusively American, concept/article. I have no clue what to do next, and would appreciate you:

• Taking over a move request

Or if you would rather not

• Guiding me how to go about it.;

Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

your commentary is requested

Hello Born2cycle, there is a noticeboard discussion -- don't panic, you have done absolutely nothing wrong -- over here at 23:16 where your username was mentioned, as a relatively-uninvolved person who interacted with User:Ahnoneemoos back in August 2013. See here, policy-page,[5] and talkpage.[6] Can you comment on their character, and on whether their editing is a net positive versus a net negative, if you have time? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

PPACA article title

Hi there. Unfortunately the PPACA talk page keeps getting hijacked by silly nonsense every time anyone suggests a title change. I've always been in favor of adhering to a straightforward application of policies/guidelines, the most relevant one being WP:NC-GAL#Legislation, namely, we stick with the label most commonly used by reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME. You indicated that "Affordable Care Act" was the most commonly used name, but you didn't back that up with any evidence. If you can provide convincing evidence of that then I'll support your position and maybe together we can do something about other editors who are blatantly disregarding or misconstruing the guidelines. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? No one has even challenged the claim that Affordable Care Act is more commonly used than the current title. Anyone who doubts it can verify in a matter of seconds with Google. --B2C 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Hi, B2C! I don't know if you have seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? I know you feel strongly on this issue and I would hate to see the discussion get closed without you having a chance to weigh in. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIO1E issue and titling

If you are still interested in this matter, I would advise you not to make any more move requests on articles about people notable for only one event, like disappearances, death, or trials. Instead, try WP:VPIL or WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about the WP:MOSPHIL naming guidelines

Hi, B2C. I noticed that you participated in a few move requests to move the articles on 3 Philippine municipalities from the comma convention to the bare placename convention (Sagada, Balangiga, and Banaue). I would like to note that the current Philippine naming guidelines (WP:MOSPHIL, since 2006) specify the comma convention for articles on municipalities. There is an ongoing discussion regarding this use of the comma convention at the WikiProject Philippines talk page and you might be interested to give your 2 cents. —seav (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyoncé

I thought if I managed to get this page moved, I'd drop you a thank you for writing WP:Yogurt Reminder, also as this case may interest you. After its ninth move request since 2006 (8 years ago!), I managed to gather a consensus to move Beyoncé Knowles to Beyoncé today. A lot of editors in the past few years opposed the page being moved, not reading or citing the policy correctly and just ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. Your piece at Yogurt Reminder, particularly about how consensus should be determined through policy-based argument and not vote-counting, undoubtedly helped me to write this, so thank you! —JennKR | ☎ 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm delighted it helped! Indeed, that is a perfect example. It seems to me there is no strong policy based argument to move Beyoncé back to Beyoncé Knowles. Only time will tell for sure. --B2C 06:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

B2C, it is great if your essay helped someone do a good thing.

There is a lot that I agree with in the essay, but in the way that asserts a bold role for the closer, I remain sure that it is a bad essay. In the case of the Beyoncé RM, JennKR made an extremely good nomination statement, addressing pertinent policy directly, addressing issues that confused or failed to convince in past RMs, in such a way that the participants were mostly convinced, and the closer's job was simply to formally ratify the obvious consensus. The essays assertions about the role or duty of closers' was in no way relevant, the closer's job was trivial, as is ideally the case.

I think that the real lesson from Yogurt is that poorly framed arguments confound consensus-building.

I still think that the essay would be greatly improved if references to the closer were removed, or replaced by referring to the participants or the community. Participants should consider whether others' arguments are policy-based. Participants should consider and comment on others' strength of of argument. Participants should evaluate others' arguments, assigning weight to differing views accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. The examples weaken the essay as they more reflect your personal conviction that in any reasonable contest, the shorter title is better.

I'm not sure what JennKR took so well from your essay, but I suspect (guess) that it was this: He reviewed all past discussions on the Beyoncé title question, he analysed as if he were your essay's closer, and the formulated your essay's ideal close. However, instead of casting this formulation as a closing supervote on the next poorly presented RM, he set it out in a fresh nomination for the community to judge. And they did.

Perhaps if your essay were re-written as advice to the RM re-nominator? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll think about it, and while I agree Jenn's brilliant argument was the clincher, finally, I strongly suspect (I haven't reviewed the history there, yet) it was unnecessary, as well as most of the 8 previous RMs, had closers done a better job of evaluating arguments with respect to policy rather than counting !votes. I'll know better when I review the history.

The potential essay to which you refer, a variant of the current one, makes a different point. The main point I'm trying to make is that closers should be doing a much better job in these cases. --B2C 07:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It really comes down to this: should discussion closers be evaluating whether there is a consensus among those editors who happen to be participating in a given discussion? Or should they be determining whether there is a consensus in the broad WP community about the question at issue, based on the arguments the participants are putting forth, and how well they are based in policy/guidelines that presumably reflect WP consensus? --B2C 07:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Jenn is a guy? Red Slash 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Yogurt Principle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Yogurt Principle. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Yogurt Principle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
The discussion (opened by me) also involves 3 related redirects: Wikipedia:Yogurt Reminder, Wikipedia:Yogurt rule and Wikipedia:YP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:B2C

I note that while user:B2C redirects to your userpage (sensible and appropriate imho) it is not a registered user. I recommend that you register that account to avoid any confusion (innocent or deliberate) should someone else take it. As you sign as "B2C" it is within the spirit of the WP:DOPPLEGANGER clause of the policy about legitimate alternate accounts. if you do not want to register, I suggest removing this message per WP:BEANS Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf (talk · contribs), the existence of the redirect at User:B2c seems to prevent me from creating an account named B2C. I presume others are prevented as well. --B2C 22:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that feature existed! Sorry to bother you. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

indecent ent

I guess I'm an indecent editor, 'cause if you email me I'll provide a cliff notes version regarding events of which you have been recently inquiring. NE Ent 12:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If it has to be done by email... not that interested. --B2C 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You can look for my name on the talk (and for tea), - but what I touch is "unclean", ask NE Ent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine I had left. Would I want an investigation on my talk. No. Do you find tea with a link. Here's Elections 2012, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB listing

Hail, master! If you hadn't seen it already, I thought you might be interested in User:Theo's Little Bot/unnecessary dab, a list of pages where Foo (term) exists and Foo doesn't. Many of these are on subjects where WikiProjects prescribe disambiguation, such as transit stations and military units, but others are just waiting for an uncontroversial move. The page started with 10,000 entries, and almost 300 have been dealt with so far. If you're ever looking for something to do, take a look. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I've predicted the significant number of such cases (thanks to the practice of predisambiguation for certain topic groups), and cited it as one of the problems with predisambiguation, but had no idea there were that many! --B2C 00:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation#The_redlink_basename_problem. --B2C 06:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 13 March 2014 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Caution

Hi, B2C! I'd just like to suggest (after seeing your series of posts today) that you might want to cool it a little at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. You are starting to get carried away, insisting that only your positions are based on policy and that everyone else's arguments amount to JDLI. This in a discussion that has already been closed! Consider rereading the earlier discussions about your posting style, particularly the ArbCom admonition that your "contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors," and the promises you made in 2012 to prevent being topic banned from move discussions. With your posts today, you appear to be pushing the limits again.

This is a friendly reminder, not a warning. As far as I know the sanctions imposed by TParis last February have expired. I am just advising you to be careful not to fall back into old habits. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... while the RM discussion was open, I backed off so as not to disrupt the discussion. Now that the official RM discussion is closed pending a decision, there is nothing to disrupt. Other issues concerning the article can be discussed in separate sections. Only those of us still interested in discussing the title issues, and choose to talk about it, are involved. I did not start the Post-discussion analysis by community section nor am I the only one participating.

By the way, I'm not insisting that only my positions are based in policy. I'm stating that the position favoring the move is clearly and strongly based in policy and that I don't know of a strong policy-based argument opposing the move; nor do I know of one that could be used to argue moving HC back to HRC if this move succeeds. I'm stating this forcifully on purpose: if there is a strong policy based argument favoring HRC over HC, I want to know what that policy is and what that argument is! --B2C 20:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB

Hi, because of the number of times it's come up, including people pointing out it's "only an essay", I'm wondering how to validate/incorporate it into guidelines which it is already based on TITLE/DISAMBIGUATION for example, and NB something about PRIMARYTOPIC's statement about standalone, undabbed titles being PRIMARYTOPIC candidates could be woven into it. I won't launch an RfC, or whatever process it takes to validate it as a guideline or ancillary to a guideline, but it's high time that it was.`Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is replete with error, option-stated-as-fact, and a skewed reading of policy. On it, B2C's redeeming behaviour is his explicit information that it is an essay by him. An attempt to legitimise it means that we'll have to insist on the restoration of the {{failed}} tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • the ornateness and comlication of wikiprocedure continues to astonish....why did it fail? It says nothing that's not already in WP:TITLE or WP:NCDAB and other places?Skookum1 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The original version was submitted as a proposed guideline. I forget why it failed. Will check later; you can too. I could use some help with wordsmithing and making it more, uh, concise. We could propose it to be incorporated into policy at WP:AT or upgrading to a guideline. --B2C 14:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It failed because it is an attempt to shore up your controversial dilution of the "precision" provision in WP:CRITERIA. Many editors do still value precision, and see ambiguity as not a great thing, even when ambiguity is not defined as narrowly as try to make it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It's creation and failure had nothing to do with me. I was not involved at all with it then. Believe it or not, I did not invent these ideas. They've been integral to WP long before me. Don't shoot the messenger. --B2C 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Changing from the positive value "Good article titles are precise enough to indicate the topic unambiguously" to the negative "Good article titles are only as precise as necessary to indicate the name of the topic unambiguously" is what I'm referring to. Was it not you who in 2009 tried to devalue precision to limit precision to just naming instead of indicating the topic? And more such attempts over time to devalue precision? Yes, same B2C who wrote this failed essay. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • We're talking about the failure of the proposal to make WP:UNDAB a guideline. I had nothing to do with that.

            What you're talking about is a change to WP:AT. I did not introduce that limitation on precision either. In fact, the full context of my change in the edit above was from this:

Good article titles are precise enough to indicate the topic unambiguously, but not more so.

to this:

Good article titles are only as precise as necessary to indicate the name of the topic unambiguously.

You conveniently left off the "but not more so" limiting clause in the original. The meaning of these two statements is the same.

--B2C 22:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

word-quibbling and games with semantics abound around here (meaning the Wikipedia backroom and edit comments).Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)`

Conciseness razor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conciseness razor. Since you had some involvement with the Conciseness razor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Where concision is not key

Born2cycle, you wrote:

There is no primary topic. The actress is far too notable to be ignored in that calculus.

But to distinguish this Sarah Brown from the others, We can't use Sarah Brown (Briton) because the politician is also British. What about Sarah Brown (British philanthropist), per recognizability? Anyone familiar with her might not recognize her from "Sarah Brown (philanthropist)" alone, but British philanthropist makes it pretty obvious. --B2C 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read this a few times, and am almost amazed. Were you serious (I think so, you are not known for jokes or sarcasm)? You are suggesting a more descriptive, less concise "Sarah Brown (British philanthropist)" over "Sarah Brown (philanthropist)" and others, on a consensus-building discussion not reading straight from policy. The suggestion also breaks WP:NATURAL.

In any case, you suggest "British" makes the title more recognizable, sufficiently more so to be worth the extra word? Is this because Sarah Brown the philanthropist is only well recognized in a British context? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks for paying attention! Yeah, I'm assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that she is not particularly well-known as a philanthropist, even for those who are familiar with her, but somehow "British philanthropist" will make it clear that it is that Sarah Brown. Besides, the relatively famous actress might be a philanthropist too, but she's not British.

But this whole case is a cluster - the current title is already entirely based on IAR. Obi has convinced me any other title is better, even if it still relies on IAR, just less. We just can't seem to find consensus on a title without relying on IAR, so we're trying to find one now that depends on IAR less than the current title does. --B2C 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. I don't understand why this discussion should be so difficult. So many people (this time not including you) are refusing to compromise to others' objections. Consensus building requires compromise to make your opponents less unhappy. Consensus building is not compatible with anyone firmly insisting that any position is "right" or "wrong".

On IAR. The best way to follow IAR is to make no mention of IAR, but to cite the reason directly. To quote WP:IAR, to attempt to justify through the rule IAR, is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of IAR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Citing IAR is not IARing! --B2C 05:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Good reasons do not need to be couched in terms of written rules. See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

smokey I must respectfully disagree. IAR is a policy, a very carefully worded one, that says IAR if the rule prevents you from improving the wiki. If you can't cite the rule you're breaking, and more importantly if you can't demonstrate why your ignoring of rules improves the wiki, you've missed the point of IAR. People will often say 'do it my preferred way per IAR' but fail to mention in what way their way is better than ways which follow the rules. If you're going to IAR, or even IOR, you need to make a case that the wiki is BETTER by ignoring that rule vs following it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, yes, you have been using the "per IAR" language. And you are right in saying that you should be able to cite the rule to break, although IAR also covers cases where the rules are inadequate or undeveloped. In the SJB case, the WP:AT rules seems inadequate. Also note that I have recently been harsh in criticism of B2C, and I mean to offer compliments on what I see as positive contribution to consensus building, and discussing benefits directly. (no comment on the discussion closings edit warring fuss). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

re SJB I agree - which is why I made the case to IAR and move to simply SB. That way we're only ignoring one rule (primary topic), not many, and the wiki is ultimately much better because readers will be easily guided to the right SB via hatnotes. I haven't yet been able to bring other people to see that POV...SJB is an example of IAR that is worse, not better, as the reader now sees before him a title that no reliable source has ever used - this title change has also made it harder to find SB in Wikipedia, and changed search result rankings for all other Sarah Jane browns... I think it's a textbook example of misuse of IAR in titling decisions...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For your involvement in the spectacle at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

But on a serious note, to repeat from the policy against edit-warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked.

I understand that you may have thought you had good reasons to make the latest revert, but as an established user, you are expected to know by now that it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" - especially when it was patently obvious by that point (from the number of times the closures/re-openings of the move discussion was being reverted [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) that you were involving yourself in an edit war. That is, your reversion at the page was still disruptive, and will hopefully be the last in the series. You should also know better to spend more time trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion; two comments [15] [16] (including at the ANI which discussed these reversions) just before making your reversion did not suffice.

Essentially this is feedback to you as an editor about just one situation you were involved in. Although I am not bothered about whether you formally include it in your editor review or not, I do hope that you will take this on board and avoid unecessarily becoming an active involved participant in these sorts of situations in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I counted 6 votes to keep the move open, vs 7 to close. Thus, clear consensus to close it early, right, because someone's feelings might get hurt? What a sham demonstration of bullying admins protecting their own, supervoting and pushing their POV. It's embarrassing for the wiki. I'm waiting to see how these warriors take on the many hundreds of pages with "wife of", "daughter of", "son of", "husband of", "father of", "mother of", in the title. Ah, wait, they won't bother? It comes down to these symbolic acts, vs real change. Just like so many expressed righteous outrage at the ghettoization of women novelists, and then did exactly fuck all to fix it for non-American, non-white novelists once the storm had passed. Do you know I still find, every day, category trees that are fully ghettoized by gender, or ethnicity? Every day. When I nominate the policy-non-compliant ones for deletion (those that can only serve to ghettoize), people launch into personal attacks. I de-ghettoize trees all the time, and do you know who helps me? (crickets) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

They blatantly ignore policy and consensus (or lack thereof) to justify their preferences. It's an outrage. Reminds me of grade school. --B2C 16:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While it might be your personal view that true serious disruption involves or is limited to the article space, the fact that behavioral policies and guidelines have been effected by the Community for all pages on Wikipedia should indicate to you that true serious disruption is not limited to the article space and extends to talk pages too.

Yes, a talk page is a venue where discussions occur so that a consensus can be reached on Wikipedia, but as you would have read from my comment, the policy against edit-warring applies to any page on Wikipedia. If you felt that an action to close a discussion on the article talk page was disruptive, or you were not happy with the conflict evident from the edit-war, or you yourself had a dispute that there was or was not consensus, you are expected to comply with policies and guidelines by utilising Wikipedia dispute resolution. The fact is: you chose not to.

To make matters worse, you also chose to actively breach policies and guidelines by engaging in battleground behaviour. This is evident from your incivility or inflammatory bad faith accusations/assumptions about other contributors (even in your comment above), and when you prolonged or participated in the edit war in the fashion I described above - and to be even clearer than in my comment above, your reversion to reopen the discussion was not exempt from the policy against edit-warring. This type of conduct is disruptive to the editing atmosphere and to the project.

Of course, you may disagree with the behavioral requirements imposed on you through these policies and guidelines, or the extent of the disruption caused by breaching the same. If that's the case, you can seek a community consensus to change the policies and guidelines. However, if you fail to adhere to the requirements in the meantime, your account may end up blocked or you may be banned from the project. Although I personally hope you will voluntarily make changes to your approach very soon so that neither would be necessary, it's beyond my control whether you actually do or not. Being an uninvolved user, I actually have no preference on what is happening with that article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For crying out loud. I'm just trying to work with others to arrive at a consensus decision on that title. WE ARE THE ONES BEING DISRUPTED. Why are you not concerned about THAT???? --B2C 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

b2c, over there - a suggestion - plz stop responding to the troll - otherwise it will be hard to have a fruitful evaluation of other options. Thanks--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that there would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion, but the fact is, that reason does not make the edit-warring acceptable. Editwarring policy expressly says when it is acceptable to editwar, and this is not one of them. If you use that reason again in future to participate in an edit war, and your action is made in good faith, you still are at strong risk of being sanctioned for it. I think my attempts to make you and the others understand why to avoid that behaviour (and warn about the risks associated with that approach) are not disrespectful. In fact, my attempts weren't intended to be disrespectful either.

However, if you disagree, then the next appropriate step for you (and for that matter, any/all of the other users who were involved in this incident or who were slapped with a trout) to seek further input about my conduct using the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. I have faith that the community would agree that your disappointment was unjustified, and that as I've said, while you may have had the best of intentions (good faith), your behavior is still unacceptable for the reasons specified above.

As to why, policy does indeed say that if a bold action is reverted (BR), there should be discussion (D) - but it also says that is not appropriate to continue a series of reverts to reinstate or maintain some sort of status quo in the meantime. What I am suggesting is not BRBRBR as you indicate; what happened was simply BRRRRR. If the last reversion to re-open or close the discussion was unacceptable to you or any other user, yes it is concerning, and you would need to seek dispute resolution in order to build consensus. That is what is encouraged in policy, and is what is being encouraged in practice. The use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in the same way that it is discouraged in policy. There was nothing to justify the rate at which reversions were made, and each of them was disruptive to the editing environment. If you don't agree with the policy in that you think it's wrong or you think "no one should be penalized", then you are achieving nothing by telling me about it; you need to (as I already indicated in my last reply) seek a community consensus to change the policy. In the meantime, by simply refusing to comply with it or ignoring it, you risk being sanctioned. It really is that simple. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, you're technically correct about reverting a discussion close as being "edit warring". But that's quintessential WP:Wikilawyering. The rules against edit warring were created to encourage discussion to develop consensus instead of changing content back and forth pointlessly. To apply rules against edit warring against someone trying to continue discussion to develop consensus is turning that underlying principle on its head. It's rewarding those who seek to suppress discussion, the exact opposite of the spirit if not the letter of this rule. Now is it possible for an admin to ignore this point and find someone in violation of edit warring in such a case? Of course. Sadly so, but there it is. BS like turning pro-consensus-development-via-discussion rules upside down to penalize those trying to develop consensus via discussion is ruining WIkipedia.

Yes, the use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in order to encourage discussion. So a revert to re-open a discussion should be exempted from this rule, per IAR (because it improves WP to do so) until it's explicitly stated. --B2C 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fyi

I (and I think you) have just been publically smeared by Tarc on Jimbo's talk page for daring to participate in controversial move requests.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That says something about Tarc and nothing about us. Ignoring. --B2C 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)