User talk:CaseyPenk/Archives/2013/September

Replaceable fair use File:Nintendo 2DS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nintendo 2DS.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM is not policy

I noticed your comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales.

You state "We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when to apply our policies and to what extent".

Normally, I would strongly disagree with that statement, as per the WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS policies. (and I take a particularly dim view of people pleading Superior orders, "just following the law", or "just following policy", etc. )

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that we should always follow policy. In that case I'd like to point out that WP:RM is neither policy nor a guideline, and is in fact on equal or lesser footing to any random other essay or wiki-project. In particular, in this case, your action seems to have set it at odds with WP:BLP, with predictable consequences.

Were you aware of the status of WP:RM? If not, how could that be improved? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the fact the WP:RM is not policy to my attention. I will keep that in mind. However, I do feel that we should give it the same attention as we do a policy or guideline, because it is an established and widely-agreed upon process that we use to settle page title disputes. WP:RM governs move requests and it is the primary deliberative process when deciding how to name an article. The purpose of WP:RM is to determine the correct policies and guidelines to apply in the specific case, and how such policies and guidelines should be applied. In that sense, WP:RM is a different kind of thing than policies or guidelines. It is a vehicle of sorts for implementing Wikipedia:Article titles as well as any other policies that may apply.

Although I initiated the move request on procedural grounds (citing WP:RM guidance that we stick with the original name and do not move it until discussing it first if the move is likely to be controversial), the move request went in several different directions. It evolved beyond a simple application of WP:RM, and got into various different policies. The policies at play in the move request included WP:COMMONAME, MOS:IDENTITY, and WP:BLP. Although WP:BLP does apply to article titles, the administrators involved in closing the discussion determined that WP:BLP considerations did not require us to use the Chelsea Manning title, and that Bradley Manning would be acceptable as a title under WP:BLP. Personally, I agree with that consideration, although you are more than welcome to hold contrary views. You may wish to share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, proposing that WP:BLP be applied more stringently in cases of transgender individuals (for example, using the person's former name would be considered a violation of the policy), or something of that sort.

I'm not sure whether you're interested in discussing the policy itself or rather my interpretation of the policy, but you are welcome to ask me about both and share your views on both.

Now, with regard to how I interpret or apply policy. You might very well believe that I am shirking responsibility by attributing my actions to "the community" or to "higher-ups" or "to policy" (or, perhaps, shirking responsibility is too strong of a phrase and you would choose a more nuanced one). You are fully entitled to that belief. However, I am confident in Wikipedia policy and I defer to it in cases of doubt. This sometimes requires setting aside my personal beliefs on a specific topic for the sake of consistency. I am not fully sure on my personal beliefs in this situation, so the considerations were frankly not as difficult as they might be for others who are more passionate. By consistency, I mean that policies apply in all cases, unless there is a specific exception carved out for a subset of articles. You may be interested in participating in the discussion here, in which I have proposed discussion about possible exceptions to the policy in cases of name changes and/or transgender individuals, and how such exceptions such be applied. You would probably agree with me that sometimes "one policy does not fit all," so these exceptions can be helpful in dealing with special circumstances.

I am happy to continue this discussion; just let me know what you'd like to cover. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall admit that I did want to check to make sure you weren't one of those folks who march in a funny way, stand at attention, click their heels and yell "Jawohl mein wiki!" and all that.

I'm not sure it would be wise to tell anyone they're entitled to that belief, mind you, because that certainly has consequences!

Fortunately, I don't think you're like that, so no worries.

Wikipedia is a consensus based system. This means that if you don't stick to your beliefs, there's no guarantee anyone else ever will. The 'rules' (which wikipedia explicitly does not have) are explicitly subordinate to consensus. Policies, guidelines, and essays are essentially prepackaged pieces of consensus. Intended to be used as tools, they are not absolutes. (Ward Cunningham might perhaps call them "community patterns" instead).

Therefore if you don't want something to happen, you are not required to invoke policies that might make it happen, and in fact are highly advised not to do so.

I think you want to act with integrity. I think that in any system, the integer thing to do is to only initiate those actions that will lead to outcomes that are in line with your beliefs. In a consensus system, this means that you should refrain from invoking a process that can lead to an undesirable outcome.

In particular, starting an RM with "(I personally believe Chelsea is the proper title)" is never going to lead to a happy outcome. (And, in fact, if I am to believe your statement, it did not :-( )

This is probably a bit different from your normal mode of thinking, but does that make a bit of sense in-and-of itself? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I have a feeling User:Jimbo Wales was likely thinking along similar lines with his comments.

Once again, you bring up great points and ones I had not considered. Not sure if I mentioned this to you previously, but I am personally unsure of what to call the article at this point. Having delved further into the relevant policies and examined my own personal beliefs, I "doth not protest" at either the Bradley or Chelsea titles. This is a contrast from where I stood upon proposing the request so my views have certainly evolved. I'm sure you would agree that that's a natural part of the deliberative process.

In any case, even now I've been talking about policy. That's because, on Wikipedia, I prize and value policy above nearly all other considerations (besides strongly held personal beliefs, such as religious ones). The Manning situation does not happen to be a matter of strong beliefs for me one way or another, so any attempt on my part to contribute to consensus would probably be muddled. Instead of relying on my own personal intuitions (which are unclear and may change), I defer to a longstanding policy. I defend policy in exactly the same way as I have to you previously - namely, to say that it's a convenient form of drawing together community wisdom into a sensible whole. I would also note that WP:CONSENSUS is itself a policy. Your thinking is radically different from that of many (most?) editors. We don't generally think in terms of abstract organizational or political philosophies so your thoughts are most welcome. I encourage you to continue to share them with others.

I tend to agree with the policies as they are written, and feel that they reflect what I would want to achieve after careful contemplation, had I written them myself. So I think the policies work well as a whole, although they can be tidied up to a lesser or greater degree (I find inconsistencies and ambiguities all the time).

I admit an appreciation for organized forms of social structure. Perhaps where you see a network of ideas (free-flowing and malleable to the touch), I see a network of rules (rigid and able to be moved only with hammers and saws). In other words, I think a consistent reliance on policy may yield duller, less forward-thinking results, but those results will be more consistent and will generally please the editors at large (although in the Manning case there might be some frustration with the policies themselves). Although it produces liberating results, I think Wikipedia is organized in a conservative fashion. That's why me and many others will turn to policies before considering the abstract reasoning (consensus) behind them.

I have tried to address our different forms of reasoning. Let me know what you think. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I admire your commitment to holding our community to the highest standards of integrity. You started the move request on Private Manning out of "a recognition of the short-term term need to follow policy", and not necessarily to favor one side over the other. Even though the discussion may have divided the community for several days, we have now become much stronger in our resolution to get the policies "right". The discussion now continues on WT:Article titles (among other pages) where you have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the issues and a commitment to maintaining an orderly and productive discussion. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Edge3 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion points

Hi Casey, In the discussion over at AT I don't think I meant the same as what Dezastru does. I propose WP should prefer the new name after a name change. That is probably the same name the subject wants but not always. I'm sorry for adding another point but to avoid mixing up the issue with questions about when or how someone’s name change (e.g. is it enough to make a public announcement, do you have to change legal name, and so forth) I think it would have to be its own point. Maybe discussion about when a name changes is necessary as well? --Space simian (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. When you say, "I propose WP should prefer the new name after a name change," how precisely would you determine the new name? On the face it sounds like you're endorsing the current WP:COMMONNAME, which is to say, we look at the new name in reliable sources. Since you say you're not talking about the subject's preferred name, I would assume you're talking about names in reliable sources. If you have a different interpretation of what a "new name" would look like, please let me know.

I also think that questions about how to determine the new name are inexorably intertwined with what the new name is. The criteria sort of meld together. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

When looking at the articles that has been mentioned recently it struck me there did not seem to be any controversy about the fact that a name has changed, only that wikipedia continue to use the older (and more frequently used) name instead of the new one. That leads me to believe name changes can be determined based on what reliable sources are reporting. In the case of both Kate Middleton and Jorge Bergoglio it was a fairly uncontroversial and easily verifiable fact that they changed name and the same appears to be true for Cat Stevens and Snoop Dogg. I suppose in the case of Manning some could still argue she hasn't successfully changed her name yet, but that will eventually become indisputable, at least if she manage to changes it in some official way (not sure how it is normally done in the USA). The biggest problem I see is if the majority of sources continue to use Bradley despite it is clear the official name is Chelsea (as in the Cat Stevens case) and this idea would at least prevent that. --Space simian (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Final Fantasy music

My general rule for a video game music article is that it needs at least 2 albums, preferably more. It's possible to do an article on a single album (each of the Xenogears albums have one, e.g. Xenogears Original Soundtrack) but generally if there's not 2+ albums for a game, then there's not going to be a lot of reviews of the music, or interviews with the composers. For example, Music of the EarthBound series needed to combine all of the games in the series to have enough content to support an article, while Music of Nier has 4 albums and a bunch of interviews that let it stand on it's own. In general, I'd say that if you can't find enough content for at least 5 paragraphs of discussion on the topic (not counting tracklists or the lead) then it should be in the main game article; otherwise you may be able to break it out in it's own article. That's why FF13-2 has it's own music article, but FF14 doesn't. --PresN 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

fyi

I guess you haven't "arrived" as an editor until you've been publicly called sexist, racist, or transphobic. So, here ya go: [1]. The twit in question is a newly minted wikipedia editor, who started a petition here: [2] which has amassed 40 signatures thus far. I tried to point out to her that they'd be much better off petitioning media sources, but I'm not sure if she heard me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a most.. auspicious(?) occasion. The author seems to imply that I'm some sort of puppetmaster, making shady deals in the back alley. That's news to me. Thanks for the heads-up. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Also - given the "transphobe" name-drop, it would have been doubly ironic had the tweet ended in #nolabels. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I've seen this before. Twit-rage. I wish people would just come here and discuss rather than name-call on twitter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me that got a weird feeling about this one, it's so out of proportion compared to other "incidents"... maybe it's just that I haven't gotten used to the effects of twitter and the likes, it seems ideal for uninformed one-liners.--Space simian (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Twitter lends itself well to impulsive, oversimplified, anonymous remarks - and you need only imagine the directions that can lead. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

new proposal

You could just edit #5. Not sure I see a big difference there...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to the IP who said he liked 1 except for the countries and groups of people. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on trying to find a solution to Wikipedia:Article titles. I see you working hard getting everyone's opinions and placing them into proposals on the talkpage, doing this helps the community on this heated issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Nice work on WP:AT. Pleasure collaborating with you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Wind Rises

Regarding your edit [3], I don't understand why you think it's contradictory when he did design of both. I can provide the citation, but, which do you want, the historical fact regarding Mitsubishi A5M, or the intention of the movie (mostly evident by watching the movie)? --Fukumoto (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fukumoto - thanks for bringing this up. As I look at the page again you are absolutely correct that he designed both, so the page as it was written previously was factually correct. However, I think it might have been a bit confusing. The lead noted his work on the Zero, but the Zero wasn't even featured in the movie - so readers might have been confused about what was actually featured (especially since the section later on down noted that many people were confused about just which plane was in the movie). I just edited the page again, including both planes in the lead so people are clear on both, and removing the citation needed tag. Let me know if you have any more questions or you think it could be improved. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing that category mess-up on my page! Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. When you mention a category you wouldn't expect for the page to be included in that category.. hence a lot of random categorization of user pages and especially sandboxes. :) CaseyPenk (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear CaseyPenk.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I saw your great coding work on the trans template and I appreciate the energy it took! Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The various discussions about trans-related topics have really shown me the importance of respectfully and accurately referring to trans people, and I hope our templates and policies can do that. If you have any feedback on other features we could add to the template let me know. Have a nice day. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm hesitant to draw too much attention but here is an example. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments removal

The comments were removed because it was a discussion that has been rehashed time and again with accusations of transphobia coming from one person and the other person of saying the other just doesn't "get the processes". The article is under discretionary sanctions and it applies to the talk page as well. Leaving the string of back and forth served nothing but to continue an atmosphere that isn't conducive to healthy discussion. Seddon ^talk 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nike+ Move

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nike+ Move, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Please nominate for deletion"

Please read WP:BRD. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, but standard practice is to document the new feature on the page for the device itself. It is not notable because it is only a single feature on a single phone. Just because its Apple doesn't mean its automatically notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, which you can find here. I was not suggesting that Apple features are more worthwhile than those of others, so please do not impugn my motives. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Touch ID for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Touch ID 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/Touch ID 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: merging

So why can't we merge it? I already merged all the relevant details into the iPhone 5s article. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No. A number of important details are missing. They are separate articles with good reason; they cover separate topics, each notable in its own right. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

4s, 5c, 5s

Sorry, where's your consensus? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, someone (you) makes a bold edit, someone else (me) reverts it, and then we discuss. Generally we keep the article at its existing state until a discussion completes. Also, changing the capitalization in the article text to be different than the article title confuses readers. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, I reverted it. Simple as that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The lowercase naming was well-established for several hours. It was the status quo. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Contradiction is not argument. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide policy-based arguments for your beliefs on Talk:iPhone 5s before engaging in more edit warring. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The status quo was set when iPod Touch was re-named or when the 5S article was created today. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Other articles do not dictate what we should do in this case. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding change of my Username

Hi Casey,

I want to change my username from Rakeshnandi1990 to Rakeshnandi, for this I had raised a request. The previous is more complex than the latter and the latter one is more comfortable for me. Also I have seen that the latter one has not been taken by anyone. One more reson being that the previous one has my Year of Birth which I don't want to share with anybody. So, I kindly request you to change it to Rakeshnandi instead of Rakeshnandi1990.

Thank You, rakeshnandi 06:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshnandi1990 (talk • contribs)

Hi there,

Thank you for the message. I definitely understand what you mean about wanting a more comfortable username. Hopefully the person who works on your request will be able to make the change you requested. Just so you know, I am not in charge of name changes - I was doing clerking, which any editor can do. If you have any further explanations you want to make on why you think the name change would be appropriate, you should definitely edit your request to fully explain. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Rename user

Hi Casey,

Please be so kind to change my username from Adanjapolak to Ipls, because it contains other's real name, I would prefer not to.

Many thanks, Adanjapolak (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thank you for the message. I definitely understand what you mean about not wanting to use someone's name - hopefully the person who works on your request will be able to make the change you requested. Just so you know, I am not in charge of name changes - I was doing clerking, which any editor can do. If you have any further explanations you want to make on why you think the name change would be appropriate, you should definitely edit your request to fully explain. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker HD logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker HD logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A question pertaining to page moves and WP:RM. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Touch ID (iPhone) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Touch ID (iPhone). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Touch ID (iPhone) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kirby Super Star

Hello there. I like the ad in the KSS image; I've never seen it before. Unfortunately it cannot be used in the current state of the article, as the article doesn't discuss the specific ad nor does it go into the game's advertising much in general. If you can find some decent discussion of the ad or the game's ad campaign I'd be more inclined to consider it. See you later! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kirby Super Star poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kirby Super Star poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:AT discussion

Hi,

The discussion you started about trans article titles at WP:AT has simmered down (the middle of the discussion got archived in #43, not sure whether it's acceptable to fish it out). What is the next step to move towards an RfC on one of the proposals? Chris Smowton (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)