User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2016/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Many page moves with the same rationale
I suggest to merge together the page moves that you just submitted on many pages (more than 30 of them) with the same rationale. Instructions for how to submit a multiple page move request can be found at WP:RM. Please also see my similar comment at Talk:Catholic Church in Algeria. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would apply to hundreds of pages. I suppose anyone could propose that. However, in this case, it was limited to a few multiple individuals cases. Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- A few? You submitted more than 30 page move requests all at the same time on different pages with the same rationale! That's what multi-page move requests are for. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point. However in this context, I would argue they accumulate a few. A multi-page move request would likely by consquence encompass other articles that I myself am not referring to at this time. However, feel free if you wish for it on a larger scale. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You left no central place to argue whether these name changes should occur. --Erp (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is sheer recklessness. Withdraw these immediately and start a central discussion please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- The way I perceive it the current situation is on a case by case basis. If any of you users wish to lift that precondition to a higher, general level, please feel free. However, there are hundreds of more similar articles, categories and what not, which I deliberately haven't concerned. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is sheer recklessness. Withdraw these immediately and start a central discussion please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You left no central place to argue whether these name changes should occur. --Erp (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point. However in this context, I would argue they accumulate a few. A multi-page move request would likely by consquence encompass other articles that I myself am not referring to at this time. However, feel free if you wish for it on a larger scale. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- A few? You submitted more than 30 page move requests all at the same time on different pages with the same rationale! That's what multi-page move requests are for. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- However your argument is based on the necessity of making these articles consistent in naming so it is not a case by case affair. You even overlooked in the request to rename Roman Catholicism in the Netherlands that the official name of the church includes Roman. As far as I can see this discussion started with a rename request of Roman Catholicism in Europe back in September. --Erp (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that might possibly be an argument (despite I don't know your source) in that article and if so prooves my point that individual cases might matter. That is the reason why I intended to propose a discussion on individual cases. If you think that is not the way to go about, feel free to initiate an evaluation on a broader scale. For the record, aspects of the general discussion dates back pretty much to the early history of Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should also have tagged Catholic Church in Latin America Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please feel free to improve where you find suitable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You should also have tagged Catholic Church in Latin America Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that might possibly be an argument (despite I don't know your source) in that article and if so prooves my point that individual cases might matter. That is the reason why I intended to propose a discussion on individual cases. If you think that is not the way to go about, feel free to initiate an evaluation on a broader scale. For the record, aspects of the general discussion dates back pretty much to the early history of Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration amendment request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. However, I guess I would rather pass venturing into such a subject. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 18:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have no interest whatsoever to be part of this. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 14:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Move requests
Stop opening up pointless move requests. I stated in my closing statement that I would be moving all countries, so please be patient. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me if redundant, if you were already aware. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)