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.
Talked backed on the inquiry I made as to the second closure.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to changing your closure from "not moved" to "no consensus"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't, if it makes a difference to you. -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
To me it does make a difference. "No consensus" seems to be more accurate considering what happened during the whole relisting mess.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Journey Through the Decade. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI note
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Did you look at his talk page? FTR, I never had any conflict with Joe until a few days ago when he wanted to cap a "t" mid-list. FWIW, the editors at the MoS agreed with me that he is wrong. Its disappointing that admins so often play the "pox on both houses" card. I havn't been bothering Joe, he's bothering me and you are defending him. BTW, had you looked at the diffs at Roger Waters, you would see that he is disputing my correction of overlinking by script. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gabe. You may want to examine User:Purplebackpack89/JoeRFCU, which displays his many instances of edit-warring, personal attacks, and incivility pbp 21:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Yes, I saw that and I saw the links on Gabe's page. Frankly, I think you two are on a fishing expedition (e.g. this is edit-warring?), so I don't give too much weight to your link collections. If anything, they show the fervency with which you are pursuing Joe; the existence of such collections is a classic warning sign that certain editors are on the lookout for any mistake by their adversaries and are aiming to entrap them.
I acknowledge that Joe's history is far from clean, with questionable outbursts at people who object to his comments and actions. However, that doesn't make him an eternal bad guy. And in this instance, I don't feel that's the case. Last week, you were told to just stay away from Joe. You seemed to stop commenting on his talk page, and yet... somehow you and Gabe forged a partnership over the last week, with the apparent common goal of getting Joe sanctioned. This kind of behind-his-back scheming is, at best, unprofessional. And then when he interjected with an entirely relevant and totally expected (albeit pithy) remark, there you are, ready to slap a warning on his talk page. I'm not sure I'm ready to throw around the T-word, but that word Joe used gets close to what happened there. You had this ridiculous public side conversation, baiting him with gems such as "I'm going to wait a couple weeks and see if he screws up again." and "What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people." Of course, Joe is responsible for what he says -- no one can make him do anything -- but don't go looking for trouble and expect to find sympathy when you find it. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@GabeMc: Much of what I said to Purple applies to you as well. There is evidence that you are baiting Joe, effectively calling him incompetent and explicitly calling him a troll. You also seem to be espousing a bit of a battleground mentality, scoping out editors to join you in your efforts against Joe. Also, let me remind you that being "right" is not an acceptable defense for edit-warring. That a handful of editors at MoS agree with you on a point is irrelevant. That you used a script to perform an action is irrelevant (you are responsible for every edit made from your account). That you weren't the first to revert is irrelevant. It takes two to tango, and I feel you're trying to use Joe's track record to shield your culpability. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever seen anyone revert the correction of overlinking common terms? Joe cam at me on a rampage. I never had any dispute with him before a couple of days ago, when he decided to start his WP:TEDIOUS campaign. What do you make of this edit? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No different than what happened in this edit. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, IMO in one diff Joe is conspiring to disrupt Wikipedia, in the other I am asking PbP that if he needs to take Joe to AN/I that I would like to weigh-in. FTR, I apologized for calling Joe a troll within minutes of making the comment, which was several days ago, but his rampage continues. I am astounded that you don't see that Joe followed me to Waters to revert the linking correction as a way of bothering me, not improving the article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. That he generally removes links, but this time he's adding links? -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to demonstrate that it has nothing to do with links, but that he was merely challenging my work for other reasons. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 04:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gabe here. Your view on the issue is very one-sided, bordering on inaccurate. For one, it assumes that it's a bad idea to template somebody if they did something wrong; see Wikipedia:Do template the regulars and other corollaries. For another, why can't we inform him that we find his continued incivility repugnant? A lot of other editors, even admins, have done the same, and he's reacted the same way he has to us: calling them trolls and children. That is patently unacceptable, and yet you ignore that in your view. You also are unnecessarily dismissive of some of the edit wars, arguing the rule of edit-warring rather than the spirit: "He only made two reverts" (even though, I counted three on some of them you say that about) or ignoring the talkpage war or whatnot. I also disapprove of your use of KETTLE and challenge you to find diffs where I use profanity, the word trolling, or childishness, against Joe or anybody else. You're essentially saying it's passable for Joe to personally attack us, but unacceptable for us to call him on it. I don't think you've examined the evidence in full, to say the only instances of incivility he's ever had are in response to something we said is grossly inaccurate. Probably 70%, 80% of the incivility diffs we've found are of editors other than us. Finally, I would challenge you to see what happens if you leave any comment on Joe's talk page that's anything but laudatory: you'll find that no matter how it's worded, he's dismissive of the problem and often personally attacks those critical of him. pbp 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your view on the issue is very one-sided, bordering on inaccurate.
Wow. As opposed to yours?
This is looking like "I didn't hear that". So far in the RfC, three people have agreed that there are major issues with your and Gabe's actions that contributed to Joe's behavior, and then we have the admins who have rejected your AN3 and ANI reports against Joe. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, there isn't this conspiracy to allow Joe to act with impunity, but that you two are actually not blameless here? I never said that Joe's responses to other editors' remarks are appropriate; however, you seem far less interested in getting him to change his ways than you are with proving that he's a menace. Your continued refusal to acknowledge any role in intensifying the conflict with Joe and your insistence that every one of your rote warnings (including this absurd one) was appropriate demonstrates a strident refusal to "get it".
As a result, rebutting your remarks here point-by-point would be a colossal waste of time, and this response here is even more than they warrant. Please ensure that your comment above is your final one on my talk page about this matter. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your "point-by-point" rebuttal
The majority of diffs you have cited in your point-by-point rebuttal have been removed. As such, you probably should restructure your rebuttal to note that, or withdraw it altogether pbp 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Tariq, I've checked for a policy to support your undo and I cannot find one. While I intend to have a response of my own, I obviously have an extra strong disagreement with SudoGhost's focus on the nominators and sweeping disregard for the overwhelming evidence. If I simply wanted to oppose for oppose sake, I'd have also left a !vote of oppose under yours.--v/r - TP 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2#Guidelines: Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough.--v/r - TP 19:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
While I am enjoying the sideshow vicariously, I refuse to dignify it by participating. While within reason they should probably be permitted to print whatever they like there, I take serious issue with the accusations of legal threats. WP:NLT is a policy with which I agree and I take it seriously. I have never made a legal threat on Wikipedia and I never would, and I really think any allegations that I made legal threats should be removed from the RfC. That's simply a lie. If you're uncomfortable removing it due to WP:INVOLVED, perhaps you could pass my concerns on to an appropriate party.
And while I refuse to participate, please don't take that to mean that I won't give pause to good-faith concerns raised by you and others; I will. But the RfC itself is simply a piece of premeditated spite and nonsense, evidenced by diffs such as the one where I apparently committed "blasphemy". This is not the Salem witch trials and I'm not going to defend myself in a star chamber. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb: I'm not sure why you've specifically objected to that point, as opposed to any others. Regardless, I'm not going to remove it, and I don't think you should worry about it. Its prefaced as a possible legal threat, and I've already noted the absurdity of the accusation. And, yes, in terms of good-faith concerns... I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but you should really stop with the gratuitous profanity. Calling something a "piece of shit" or inserting fucking for emphasis may sound normal and not mean-spirited in informal speech, but in print on Wikipedia, where we can't hear the tenor of your voice and where people from all of the world who don't know you can read it, it's more likely to not come off very well. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you need to participate in this circus much. I only spent about 30 minutes reviewing some of his attacks and can see most are gross exaggerations. (I wanted to say Tariqabjotu did an excellent job of identifying this trend in Gabe's original research style attacks) Reviewing the attacker's edit history, ignoring his massive minor edits count, I find examples of this behaviour being used on dozens of editors that have attempted editing on the articles he participates in. This drives editors away from Wikipedia and is plainly not the spirit of Wikipedia. I have noticed a escalated display of attack level for IP editors. This usually demonstrates article ownership. He has no right to complain about others when his own behavior exemplifies his complaints. Joe, I have repeated the sentiment given (above) to you on my own talk page. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hotel California page move
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I guess I was one of the first to suggest making the song the primary topic, but do we now have go through and change the link in every case where Hotel California was intended to point to the album, but now points to the song? --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 05:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but well that bot request and the changes would have to be done quickly before editors start linking Hotel California to the song now, right? Also, we have to consider italicizing of both displayed text in a pipe and in a straight up link, so the bot will have to know to change ''[[Hotel California]]'' to ''[[Hotel California (Eagles album)|Hotel California]]'' right? --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 05:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That's functionally equivalent to the bot just changing the link from Hotel California to Hotel California (Eagles album); the bot creator can figure out how to properly to do it anyway. You vastly overestimate the degree to which other editors will notice the move and the speed at which they will change any links. As long as the bot gets done within the next week or two, you're fine. You may get a few false positives, but editors on the respective pages would surely notice and revert the bot's modification. -- tariqabjotu 05:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I am probably overestimating those things. I'm not in a panic over this though, just asking. I've never made a bot request before, but willing to give it a try. Thanks. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 05:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The text added by 76.65.128.222 wasn't originally part of Anthony Appleyard's comment; see
[1]. —rybec 15:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that's the case. However, it's supposed to be there. Per requested move instructions, you are supposed to use {{subst:Requested move|''NewName''|''Why''}}, which adds the {{Requested move/dated}} template and that additional piece (see Template:Requested move#Usage). The fact that that piece didn't show up is evidence that he just manually (and incorrectly) added the {{Requested move/dated}} himself. Also, considering he personally is not actually requesting the move, it'd probably be better if someone else (perhaps you) wrote an opening reason (using the {{subst:Requested move|''NewName''|''Why''}} template) to accompany the request. -- tariqabjotu 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right; I was wondering if he had forgotten to substitute it. I'll ask 76.65 about adding the reason. —rybec 16:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill[talk] 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Forever in Love (instrumental)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Tariq, you moved the above, which was consensus, but there no support for moving Forever in Love (Sylver song) to Forever in Love (song). One person suggested, one opposed and another saying that Forever in Love (song) should point to the disambiguation page. Perhaps you would be kind enough to consider the unsupported move? --Richhoncho (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Wow, ok. Yeah, I'll move it back. With the recently added hatnote, it's that issue again. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cavann (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
DefendEachOther and review fora
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Tariqabjotu. From Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_August. I hadn't disclosed prior involvement in the RM because I consider the MR question to be a completely different to the RM question. However, you are completely right, in that declaring non-uninvolved non-outsider status is desirable. You have a particular point given that I mention your prior involvement in the general question and suggest that it was enough that you shouldn't have been closing (that you closed against your own previous opinion is not the point). Please note that this is advocating a quite high standard, and I hope that you don't feel personally criticized. I'd prefer the word "critiqued" for my comments in review forums.
In citing Meatball:DefendEachOther, I didn't mean to suggest that you were bludgeoning, but you are perhaps too quick to answer points that might have been more convincingly answered by others. As the meatball essay says, the answers are more convincing if they come from outsiders. If you provide quick answers, it dissuades outsiders from answering. Of course, if no one answers a question, its probably good for your to answer before the end, and if the question is direct, you should answer.
I wish that MR nominations and supports of the nomination weren't considered indictments. Review forums are better considered as community continuing education.
I do wish that you hadn't closed an actively progressing discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page. Message added 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page. Message added 15:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I can see it upset you, so my apologies for having deleted your comment with this edit of mine. It wasn't intentional. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@Psychonaut: It wasn't you. The frustration was at the software, which has allowed people to inadvertently delete my comment three times ([2], [3], [4]). Undoing your edit, and readding your comment was, I felt, the best way to stop that from recurring. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit is the message that people just can't seem to hear. Thank you for saying it. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate the remark. -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill[talk] 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Mail me
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
...will you? I just want to run something by you. --RA (✍) 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: I assume you tried emailing me using the standard mail function. I had recently changed my email address and failed to confirm it, so it was temporarily disabled. It works now, but I've also emailed you. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill[talk] 15:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You closed the Saint Peter RM pretty soon after the argument that you thought won the day was made (that "Saint" is a disambiguator) and I didn't have a chance to respond. I think it's a particularly bad argument since there are many Saints Peter. Even if not, I can't think of any other page where an honorific is used as a disambiguator, but I can think of cases where they would be useful if permitted. This was the only argument advanced in favor of "Saint Peter", even though several policy-based arguments were made against it. I had not really fought much in this RM since the "Saint" advocates weren't even making arguments, just voting. --JFH (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just a note that the RM turns out to be by Kauffner Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. I don't say this requesting any different action that what you've taken, this is simply a nod so you are ahead of information. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: For the love of God. Thanks; I'll get around to it when it's not 1am. -- tariqabjotu 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Please note that I haven't named you, so I expect that Hahc21 or someone else will bring whatever evidence against you that they choose to.--v/r - TP 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Tariqabjotu. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Please Help!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'd like a further explanation as to how you formed consensus on the Neon Genesis Evangelion move. I am concerned because the definition of primary topic here leads 50,000 people to a different page and makes there search for material more complex. I'd like to understand how you reconciled the issue of PTOPIC and applied it to DABCONCEPT which academically speaking has referred to all media as "Neon Genesis Evangelion" in show and movies under that name; and a large number of works are prefixed with the term. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was not involved in this RM at all, but have now glanced at it. Move? With no explanation? Frankly, I find your mute close decisions to be disrespectful to everyone involved, even when I'm not one of them. --B2C 03:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: And I find your badgering to be obnoxious. RM has a perennial backlog, and I'm not going to provide a book-length explanation when I feel it's self-explanatory why a decision is made. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No one is asking for a book. Two or three sentences is usually quite adequate. But a one word decision? Only in very obvious situations. Thank you. --B2C 07:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the decision is not entirely mine. Do I see the sensibility in having franchise articles occupy the title without disambiguation? Sure. Would I have supported this move? Perhaps not. But I'm looking at the consensus of editors who participated, not injecting my own opinion. The remarks of those supporting the move, who cited PRIMARYTOPIC, were valid in light of policy and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How did you evaluate the previous WP:DABCONCEPT which says "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics ... the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page."? The "general topic" is Neon Genesis Evangelion which consists of no less than ten works baring the name and numerous spin offs all prefixed with the term. I reasoned with PTOPIC that while anime had the largest view count a sizable minority and combined being greater than the anime, were the collection of media all attributed as Neon Genesis Evangelion. View count is just one tool, but academically Neon Genesis Evangelion includes works like "Neon Genesis Evangelion: End of Evangelion" and is discussed without exclusive use to the anime. In My Father, He Killed Me; My Mother, She Ate Me: Self, Desire, Engendering, and the Mother in Neon Genesis Evangelion Ortega includes a lengthy discussion and pictures about End of Evangelion's interpretations. Dozens of English and non-English sources to do not differentiate between Death and Rebirth, EoE or even the manga and now are adding in the NGE Rebuld series. The topic of Neon Genesis Evangelion rather than the specific anime focus is the important both academically and to provide context to tens of thousands of readers looking for information about its body of works and what NGE is about. Such an article is difficult to create, but I do not see how the hatnote to the anime was worse than the anime's hat note to the topic page; I do not see how it is an improvement in terms of organization or comprehending the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Not that I want to answer in Tariqabjotu's place, but it's pretty clear WP:DABCONCEPT works in case of the primary topic already being determined as a broad concept, but does not state anywhere that several works bearing the same name necessarily have a broad concept primary topic. Other users have already explained that to you when you raised the question at the guideline talk page (you seem to have misunderstood WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:PTOPIC as two different approaches, while both are about the very same thing, only with WP:DABCONCEPT illustrating a specific case of WP:PTOPIC). Determining what exactly is the primary topic is to be done by consensus discussion, and Tariqabjotu merely assessed this consensus to tip on the side of PTOPIC being a specific use of the name rather than a broad concept (and rightly so in my opinion). As for your other arguments about End of Evangelion, the source you quote clearly refers to it as End of Evangelion and not "Neon Genesis Evangelion: End of Evangelion". No confusion possible for the reader. Note that your source also states "Evangelion is, without doubt, one of the most complex anime serials produced in the late 1990s"..."anime serials", not "animated franchise/corpus" and the likes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
August Coup RM
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like a further explanation as to how you formed consensus on your "no consensus" decision at Talk:1991_Soviet_coup_d'état_attempt#Requested_move. In particular, presuming you did not merely count !votes, I'd like to understand what arguments you found to be based in policy on each side, and how you weighed them against each other. Thank you.
In general, an RM close explanation of "No consensus" is not an explanation at all. In this case, I went to great lengths to explain how the oppose arguments were not based in policy. Did you ignore that, or disagree? If you disagreed, why? Thank you. --B2C 03:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You may not be aware, but I actually asked EdJohnston, who previously closed the discussion, to reopen it on those grounds; many of the early opposing comments were quite poor. However, as time went on, there appeared to be legitimacy to the idea that "August Coup" may not be recognizable enough, even if people are familiar with the topic. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned your reasoning in your closing comments. I, for one, wish you that you adopt such a practice. Thank you. --B2C 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: It's kind of tough to predict who will complain and in what manner. I'm only going to provide explanations when the results are hard to decipher, which, despite your inquiries here, does not describe either of these move requests. It's commonplace that someone who had a counter opinion in a move request ends up unhappy, and there is no reason I need to provide any sort of explanation when the response to "Why did you do that?" is simply "Other people disagreed with you." I'm not changing the way I do this. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
What does the "toughness of predicting who will complain and in what manner" have to do with whether it's helpful and respectful to the community for a closer to explain his or her reasoning? Frankly, I don't understand why you said that. I'm very curious... what are you thinking? When you explain your reasoning, "predicting who will complain and in what manner" should not be a consideration.
You should simply explain your reasoning, whatever it is. Maybe habitually explaining your reasoning will reduce the number and kind of complaints, maybe not. But if it does, that would just be a bonus. The important thing is to explain. If certain arguments were dismissed because they were refuted or blatant JDLI, it helps to point this out because it should cause people to leave substantive arguments in the future (or, better yet, not bothering trying to defend a position that can't be defended substantively). If certain arguments are highlighted as being particularly persuasive, that should encourage others to try to form such arguments in other RMs, if possible. Good closer explanations should help raise the quality of RM discussions. That's the point. If you just close with "moved", or "not moved" or "no consensus", there is no feedback. The improvement process is short-circuited. --B2C 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Temporary Injunction Enacted
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, A very thanks for your move request, It means a lot for us, in our previous move requests we were tired convincing but could not present the case as you did in this request. It was solid one shot goal by you. Thanks a lot once again. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Mosque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomspicker (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
