User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 8

Ixelles-Elsene

Hi, thanks for moving three of the Brussels municipalities. Could you move Ixelles-Elsene to Ixelles as well? Markussep 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one. It's done now; cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Markussep 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Could you Undelete it please? semper fi — Moe 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) semper fi — Moe 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-uncontroversial proposals revisited

Hi. When a requested move is placed under "Uncontroversial proposals" at WP:RM, and the request is not uncontroversial, is it enough for an editor to merely comment underneath (as I have sometimes done, following the example of other users) and wait for an Administrator to move it below, or can/should said editor move it themselves with an appropriate comment (similar to de-prodding)? I.e., can one "be bold" or is this an Admin task?
Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone may move proposals from "Uncontroversial" to the regular section, or simply delist them. The fact that you oppose a move is prima facie evidence that the move is not, in fact, uncontroversial. I think it's considerate when removing a proposal from the uncontroversial section to make some comment, either beneath the proposal, or at the relevant talk page. If you move a proposal to the regular dated section, it's especially good to start a discussion on the talk page, whether formatted as a survey or not.

It's also perfectly fine to simply comment without moving the request, as you've done and seen others do. We just don't want a full-blown discussion to happen right there at WP:RM; that's what the article's talk page is for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I thought. But I thought I'd check anyway. Thanks for the prompt reply. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I've replied to your comment on one of my "uncontroversial" move requests at WP:RM, about the Option locus of pages. Please take a look. Thanks for your help thus far and I'll trust your judgment from here on out. Dekimasuが... 13:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's taken care of. The new content at Option was basically repeating what's in three other articles, so nothing's really lost by moving the dab page (with links to all three) over it. Happy editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I Will Not Mention

I clearly meant that I will not mention it where other people can read it in the WIkipedia article. And I did not mention it in the article. My comments were offline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.112.121.29 (talk • contribs) 19:45, February 3, 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, sure. I saw it, thought it was a nasty comment, and remarked accordingly. It was certainly visible to the next person who would edit the article, and to anybody with the article on their watchlist, or watching "recent changes". If you weren't addressing those who would actually see your comment, who were you addressing? Wikipedia is not for hidden editorializing, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Franz-kafka's improper moves

Can you review the edit history of Franz-kafka (talk · contribs). The user seems to make a lot of questionable moves without discussing them on the talk pages of the article they move and without going through the WP:RM process. They also seem to use copy-paste moves when they are unable to move an article to a desired location. Here are a few examples of their more questionable moves:

• A copy paste move of Harry S. Truman to Harry S Truman.[1] While true, a copy-paste move shouldn't be used.
• A copy paste move of Honor killing to Honour killing.[2] Regardless of the copy paste method used, changing an article from American English to British English is always controversial and should go through WP:RM.
• Moving Prezza to Prezza (Italian town)[3] and then making Prezza a redirect to John Prescott[4]. Yet again, a controversial move that should have gone through the move process.

I've dropped a message on the user's talk page asking if they are aware of the move process, but thought I'd contact an administrator about getting some of their questionable moves undone and/or having an admin give them a correction. Thanks!--Bobblehead 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I actually reverted the Truman move myself when it happened, so I guess I've run into this editor before. (Truman himself used the dot after the 'S', it turns out; there's a section in the article about it.) Regarding the Prezza move, I'm not sure whether that title should belong to the town in Italy, or redirect to Mr. Prescott. It's possible that the word, when used in English, refers overwhelmingly to the politician. Rather than undoing the move when it could possibly be correct, I've added a move request (and appropriate dablinks) and we can let the matter be decided by a discussion. I'll also leave a note on kafka's talk page. Thanks again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Prezza

So I saw, but there is no notice at John Prescott, which there should be, as you are proposing to displace that from being the primary article. This invalidates the discussion until it is corrected Johnbod 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. A discussion is a discussion is a discussion. I don't know why you would want to invalidate a discussion to which you're currently the only contributor offering an opinion. You think this is some kind of partisan grab for the guy's nickname or something? I've seen no evidence that anybody cares about the Italian town, just that someone cares about doing page-moves properly without leaving over 100 broken links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem Johnbod 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - If I was a little sharp, i expect it is because of my recent experiences at Castelseprio and its talk page. I'll be interested to see if the Prezza discussion attracts as little attention as you expect - I think domani matino a flood of comments may suddenly materialise - or maybe not. Johnbod 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that both the nickname and the town are pretty obscure. I have made Prezza a dab page. (Most of the links to Prezza were actually from Template:Province of L'Aquila. -- Beardo 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility

As far as the "civility" thing goes, I suggest you view the talk session in the video journalism heading left by Mackan. He has no problem throwing around the f-bomb, which started the entire problem in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.80.64.206 (talk • contribs) 14:29, February 8, 2007 (UTC).

So, your excuse is, "he started it"? Who's gonna finish it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon move ... move... lol

even though it was listed at Uncontroversial Moves, I have moved Pokémon move back to its orginal page at moves per the exceptions at WP:Name regarding pluralization. The article discusses the moves collectively, and the requester, I beleive, did not understand the circumstances in which a wikipedia article may accurately be pluralized. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM

Nice job on RM. How on earth do you move so fast? I don't even have the pages loaded in the time it takes you to finish five moves. What's your secret? Kyle Barbour 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all about the tabbed browsing. Thanks for the shout-out. :D -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Castelseprio

I would signal you the behaviour of user:Johnbod at Castelseprio: another personal attempt to put back the page at his will to a pre-Edir War version, when a large consensus had been reached to keep things as they were. He did an alleged splitting, but not the one discussed there. Bye and thanks --Attilios 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism, possible sockpuppetry: Clancy60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Fleming60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ellroy60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

There's a user who just popped up today -- User:Ellroy20 -- who has been doing the subtle type of vandalism (non-obvious changes, the type that make you actually have to go elsewhere to check up before you can revert them). His M.O. is exactly the same as the other two (Clancy60 and Fleming60), he edits many of the same articles (with an especial fetish for Brandon Routh) as well as making the same edits, and each successive account has only popped up when the previous one was blocked. I reported him (under the name Fleming60) - that user had already been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet -- over at WP:AIV, but the report was deleted because said user had not received his full spate of friendly "Now, Now!" warnings. It's counter-productive and time-consuming to have to go through a user's entire edit history, checking each and every change. Do we have to go through the "five-level warning, oops now you're blocked for three whole days, you naughty baggins" for this kind of persistent, obvious vandalism? This user is easily disrupting the project because of the effort its taking to combat it and try and keep the facts straight. That this tail is able to wag the wikidog in this way is frustrating.

Any assistance you can render in this regard would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Been dealt with. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Video journalism vandal

User_talk:216.80.64.206

Could you please do something (ban, block, whatever you think will help) about User_talk:216.80.64.206? You warned him about blanking my page, which didn't stop him for doing it time after time again [5]., also with his user account User:Mister-jones. He once suggested that he can't be banned because he has "wifi"; "You can't ban me when I'm surrounded by Wifi, gengenius. Have fun constantly repairing your page!" [[6]]. Except for deleting my page on several occasions, even after being warned by three different people (me, you and User:The Rambling Nan, he is engaging in an edit war on video journalism, and refuses to give any rationale for his edits. He removes sourced statements because of what he states "his friends at the BBC" have told him. He also tried and blackmail User:CloudNine not to edit the article "video journalism" on the basis of him having used the "f-word" which he suggested "violates the Editor Review terms" (it was however me who had used it, saying something like "how fucking easy do you think it is easy to claim you have a BA in journalism on the internet?"). While I understand that was not entirely civil on my part, it was only after being provoked by the users unwillingness to co-operate. The user also called me a "mental-midget" [7]. I would much appreciate if you took action against this user. He has obviously no intent of changing his behaviour around for the better because he thinks no disciplinary action can be taken against him. Mackan 09:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, he was warned about 3RR on his account talk page [8] by User:CloudNine.Mackan 09:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left the editor a sternly worded message, and I won't hesitate to issue a preventative block if any disruption follows; feel free to let me know, if I should miss it. After experiencing a couple of blocks, he'll learn that we really can make it difficult for someone bent on disruption to edit here. Whether that lesson makes him come back smarter or just go away, it'll be a good one.

In the future, I'd encourage you in similar cases to take the lead, and state the justification for your reverting on the article talk page. This will encourage the other editor to reply there, which is generally a step in the right direction, away from edit-warring and towards discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'd just like to point out that I did try and take a lead and justify my reverting on said user's talk page ([9]), but on the other hand the revering business had been going on since a while before I wrote that and there should have been discussions on the talk page earlier. I realised this from the start but I was just too tired to get into it and hoped that the anonymous user would stop reverting, when that didn't happen I posted on his talk page. Mackan 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring Me The Horizon

You recently moved the page Bring Me The Horizon to Bring Me the Horizon. The band, wherever their name is written, nearly always have it written as BRING ME THE HORIZON... see their myspace, but occasionally they have it written as Bring Me The Horizon, see the bottom of their purevolume page, never as Bring Me the Horizon. Therefore I believe it should either be moved back, or moved to a new page "BRING ME THE HORIZON". I won't do anything yet, but I would like to hear from you, about the actual page name. Asics talk 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to our naming conventions, we generally use standard English rules for capitalization, even when trademark holders and the like encourage special typography. For example, the article about the band KISS is at Kiss (band), the article about P!nk is at Pink (singer), etc. That's why I moved BMTH to the standard formatting, with "the" decapitalized. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Honour killing

Could you move Talk:Honour killing as well?Because of the copy/paste technique used I'm guessing that meant the moving of the main page meant the talk page wasn't moved with it. Thanks! --Bobblehead 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I managed to forget the talk page! Thanks for the reminder; it's done now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remo

You recently changed the redirect of the remo company page to the disambiguation page. I see this as unnecessary not only because the remo company page actually refrences back to the Disambig pae, but also because the other meanings hold very little notability. If you wish to respond and convince me that I should not revert it, please do so here: USER:Random task

It wasn't clear to me why Remo (company) was the primary topic at Remo (disambiguation). I agree that either the dab page or the page about the primary topic should be at the main title, rather than having Remo redirect to either Remo (company) or Remo (disambiguation). If you say that the company is clearly more important than the language or anything else there, I'll take your word for it, and won't revert. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't Understand

You typed "whoa - that's a change that would require a citation. I've always read that LSD experiences are distinct from "true" hallucinations." So why don't you have a citition on there...

I will find one, given "I know" that it does cause what is descirbed in the hallucination hyperlink as a "true" hallucination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanb123 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Huh. According to the second paragraph of Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants, so-called "hallucinogenic" drugs do not produce hallucinations, but merely distort ordinary sense input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Satiric misspelling

Thanks for closing the requested move of Alternative political spelling/Satiric misspelling. I wasn't sure what the procedure was in cases where the move is performed without an admin's help. –Sommers ^(Talk) 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; thank you for helping out with the move. There's not really an "official" procedure; anyone completinging a move request is welcome to remove the template from the talk page and delist the request at WP:RM. Otherwise, one of us RM regulars will show up and close it out eventually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush album move

Although the album was moved, it was moved to the WRONG page. the title, as per Rush.com, is Snakes & Arrows, not Snakes And Arrows, and should be re-moved to reflect that. Thank you. ThuranX 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to that title now; thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! very cool! ThuranX 02:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves of related articles

I was wondering if it would be possible for the requested moves of two related articles to be merged or by any other means to not have the discussion split up. Requested moves: TNA iMPACT! → TNA Impact!, TNA iMPACT! (video game) → TNA Impact! (video game) --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they'll certainly be closed together; but I don't feel I should close them, as I've definitely taken a side in the discussion. I'll leave notes in both discussions alerting the closing admin to treat the two requests/discussions as one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I know how you fealt regarding the move, but do you think it was appropriate for one of the editors to move all these pages (and prevent non-admins from moving them back by editing the redirect) even though another admin declared the result to be "no consenus"? TJ Spyke 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think completing the move despite the "no consensus" close is the appropriate way to handle the situation. I think an RfC on the pages would be more appropriate, and it's probably worth doing, because I'll be interested to know if the general consensus about avoiding eccentric typography is actually changing, or if, as I suspect, this case is a fluke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you directly for so quickly responding to my page move request of Roush Fenway Racing. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; thank you for helping out with the article! -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Etching

Hi, sorry to bother you. Yesterday someone speedily deleted "etching" , on the grounds that it only redirected to etching (art). The edit summary I think said etching (art) should be moved there. Today I just find etching gone, which means about 500 redlinks (including one on an article on DYK ...). I have I think moved the page, but because "etching" had its own talk page, I can't move the talk page. Etching was in fact the old title until another editor decided to move it a few months ago, and the talk pages seem to be the same. Anyway a notice said I needed an admin to sort it out. Please pass to a colleague or let me know if you're too busy. As the redlinks have gone, I can't see it as urgent.

For background: after the last move to etching (art), which I & others objected to, we had settled at a situation where Etch has a disam page, but "etching, etcher, etchings" redirected straight to etching (art) as that is what the vast majority of links were referring to. The alternative meanings are about making microchips etc - they got "etchant, etched". Many thanks Johnbod 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reggaetón

You moved the reggaetón page to ‘reggaeton’ and used the survey and “common usage” as your excuse. The survey was not a vote and common usage is reggaetón, publications like The New York Times and The New Yorker use that spelling, so does MTV. If anything won the debate it was the “reggaetón” spelling, nobody had any strong arguments for the anglicised version. What exactly are you thinking?

You changed the title of the page, but did not alter the spelling on the actual page. What have you done? Changing the title for convenience, but allowing the diacritic on the page for precision? Clarify this please. Also you left links to discussions about diacritics in titles, but it does nothing to clarify whether to use them or not. It does both and in this case so should reggaetón, the accent is essential just like the accents in the ‘résumé’ page. --Noé Æ 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the survey was not a vote, and I did not close it based on anything like counting votes. As far as I could tell from the evidence I saw, the spelling without the accent is more common in English language sources. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm happy to be corrected. I did a Google search for "Reggaetón", and in the first three pages of results, only one was an English language page using the accent, so it seems to me that the accent is not so common as you say.

Like I said, though, I'm open to seeing evidence that the accented spelling is more common - it would be best to present such evidence at the article's talk page. The arguments I saw for the accented title had much more to do with its correctness than with its commonness.

As for changing the spelling within the article, I would have done well to change it when moving the article, and you're right to point that out to me. I'll fix it now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You shall be corrected, I found many English pages searching for “reggaetón” on Google. The first page[10]: The Village Voice, BMI, City Pages and more. The second page [11]: The New York Times, NY Times | Travel, mun2 and many others. Third page[12] has a lot too. You weren’t searching right. If you’re going to argue in favour of the anglicised spelling “reggaeton” on the page you’re going to have to debate that. So far you have no reason. --Noé Æ 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm not trying to "argue for an anglicized spelling"; I'm just trying to get the page titled according to common usage. I have no stake in what this page is called, and don't care which name turns out to be more common. We got different Google results because you included quotation marks and I didn't, not realizing that they would affect the results for a single-word search. I was using the best information I had available - look at my search results. You don't need to tell me that I "have no reason" as if I was somehow acting in bad faith. I'm giving my time to help maintain this resource, and I don't appreciate being talked down to, alright? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new section at Talk:Reggaeton for addressing this question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I left your talk page on my watchlist after leaving a comment above, but I left an explanation of the effect quotes have on single word searches on the Reggaeton talk page. Keep up the good work on the page moves. --Bobblehead 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Empiric

I suppose that might work. Then again, we're already on a mediation page with JZG. If you want to do an empiric analysis, I'll give you a list of policies/guidelines/processes I've been involved in writing and you can check whether this is consistent with guideline development. Off the top of my head my list contains policies such as WP:PROD and WP:BURO, processes such as WP:BACK and WP:CFDS, and guidelines such as WP:CSK and WP:FICT. >Radiant< 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Messy page move

Hello, I was working on the article matchbox twenty and upon attempting to move it to Matchbox Twenty (conventions for proper names, WP:MOS-TM, etc...), I noticed that both articles have edit histories, probably due to a copy paste move in the past. Could I ask you to merge those and (should you agree with me) move the article? Regards - Cyrus XIII 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the histories at Matchbox Twenty, which is correct according to our house style, regardless of how the band chooses to capitalize their name. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I read your input at the TNA Impact! move discussion and we appear to be on the same page regarding non-standard capitalization. Would you like to be notified, should I run into similar house-keeping issues or discussions? - Cyrus XIII 04:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to let me know about similar situations. I've been doing a lot of page moves for the last few months, so I'm fairly practiced when it comes to history merges and the like. Posting requests at WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals will also get my attention pretty quickly, as I process requests there just about every day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this Matchbox Twenty thing is going into overtime after all. Is there any way to get rid of that "unless it is unique" bit in WP:NC? I stumbled over it before and the only purpose it appears to effectively fulfill, is to leave its whole paragraph highly ambiguous. By the way, there is this other discussion over at the MoS for capital letters in which I've been trying to get results for a while now, in order to finally apply them to Hide (musician). Consensus appears to be there, yet the other party in this discussion seems in no hurry to acknowledge that. I don't want to engage in another childish "Is!"/"Is not!" situation, so the whole affair should probably be wrapped up by a party not previously involved in it. - Cyrus XIII 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "unless it is unique" phrasing isn't even clear. I noticed there are already a couple of talk page topics about that sentence, but I need to do a little more reading before I dive in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving PdfEdit -> PDFedit

Ahem, you got the move wrong. The correct capitalization should be PDFedit, not PDFEdit, as you have moved it. Can you please fix it? --MP 12 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I've fixed it now, and on the plus side, there are now redirects from PdfEdit and PDFEdit! Thanks for catching my mistake. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply

Thanks for fixing the Gauche effect article! V8rik 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The survey on matchbox twenty

Oh, I'm not faulting you at all... I'm just worried that we're only just starting to air out our arguments, and suddenly there's this 5-days-left time bomb. And I know it's just an informal survey to see where everyone stands, but I'm concerned we might have people on either side say "Oh, my side won 8-6, we're totally moving it to Matchbox Twenty (or keeping it at matchbox twenty)". But I appreciate the idea, I'd just personally have wanted a bit of a longer wait. In a few days, we may well have all the arguments clearly laid out, and then I'll feel comfortable make a "vote". Cheers! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think of it as a binding vote, and no decision will be made based purely on numbers. I also wouldn't worry about the five-day limit. We're pretty flexible with that sort of thing at WP:RM, as you can tell by looking at the backlog! Maybe that's why I was so casual about opening a "formal" survey. It's just a way to get the discussion ball rolling; there's no reason to think it'll be closed before everybody's had their chance to process the discussion. At least, that's been my experience with RM discussions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wave function

Thanks! Geekman314^{(contact me)} 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, I've sometimes seen your name showing up on pages relating to userboxes, but I can't remember what those pages were called. I removed some FairUse images from the userpage of a new user tonight, and explained the policy to him, and he asked me this question. Can you direct him to a page that will show him various boxes he can choose from. Thanks. Will e-mail you when I have time. Musical Linguist 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves

Would you say this qualifies as "deliberately creating history"? Chris cheese whine 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't really say it isn't, but whether I would actually say it is, in order to exploit a loophole in some ArbCom decision... no I wouldn't say that. I would just RFC the page and tap into the community, which is either broadly against eccentric typography, or else we ought to know that the climate has changed, which would be a shame, IMO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - that was more for my purposes than anything else. Just that lately I've done quite a bit of cleanup, vandalism fighting, maintenance, etc. and been falsely accused of breaching 3RR twice. Chris cheese whine 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

TNA iMPACT!

I'm all in favour of not humouring trade mark holders, and if someone notifies me that there is another requested move on that page then I'll express that opinion. I am well known for not liking funny foreign squiggles on words, but yesterday I did not move Sulejman Talović because there was not a consensus on the talk page to do so, even though it was pointed out that his name in English sources is usually without the squiggle. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you seem to be taking a stand for bowing to consensus over guidelines. I try, in handling move requests, to pay attention to a broader consensus sometimes than is represented on the talk page in question. In this case, as I told TJ Spyke above, I think it would be appropriate to set up an article RFC to get a wider opinion on the matter, because I'm pretty sure the general consensus is against such renderings of titles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Philip, hi. I have to ask, regarding the move poll at Talk:TNA Impact!, whether you would have closed it differently had I registered a numbered "!vote" instead of simply contributing to the discussion? I ask because I was reading an old, unrelated RM discussion, and I noticed you there, referring to a 60% threshhold, which I've never heard of before, except from you. Then I realized that my support at TNA Impact! does put the number over that percentage.

Probably. But there was also one abstention. Either way it was close. The thing is I spent half the day making decisions on the backlog and I was not going to spend long wadeing through lots of verbage. Just checking that the people who expressed an opinion in the Surverys takes a long time.

Independently of the current situation, I'm kind of curious how you arrived at 60% as a threshhold. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As to 60% it was originally chosen because it works well with low number of contributers to a debate about page moves Which as you will see in the survey I conducted 63% were under 5, 10% 0ver 5, and 18% not clear/spoilt.

• Preposal no opposing views -- 100% -- move.
• Proposal and one oppose -- 1/1 -- 50% -- don't move
• Proposal, one support and one oppose --2/3 -- 66% --move
• Proposal, two support and one oppose -- 3/4 -- 75% --move.
• Proposal, two support and two oppose -- 3/5 -- 60% --move.
• Proposal, one support and three oppose -- 2/5 -- 40% -- no move

See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_5#Stats (Revision as of 22:08, 10 October 2005 Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/stats 1-10 October) for some stats on the type of page moves from those you will see than most are covered by the above.

There are is a lot more in the archives about this but here are a few to get you going:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_3
• Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_4#consensus
• Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_5#60%
• Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_6#60% (Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/stats 1-10 October)
• Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_8#Approval voting

Also see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header Revision as of 23:47, 30 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (Put back previous wording for the paragraph. Does not seem to have ever been a discussion to change it on the talk page)

Hope this helps --Philip Baird Shearer 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Our naming conventions have developed to the point that someone can generally argue for a "correct" name, according to our guidelines. I feel our job as administrators is to act as a rational judge of those arguments, not as a vote-counter.

Well I guess it depends on whether you think of your self as a magistrate or not. I think that the people in the discussion are best suited to make the decision, not someone who has not been involved in editing the page and has no special interest in that page name. I have no problem with presenting the guidelines to people to help them make a more informed decision, but I would not dream of imposing my interpretation of those guidelines on other people because that defiantly is not building a consensus. As a true consensus is almost impossible to achieve in a wikipeda debate a rough consensus is the best we and do and for page moves I think a 60% threshold is reasonable (particularly if it involves less than 5 people) for making that decision. After all that usually gives the admin the freedom to make the decision. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that we arrive at a lot of the same conclusions by somewhat different trains of thought. ... I figure I'll just keep closing moves as I think it should be done, and you'll do the same, and I'm sure Wikipedia will be fine.

Yes, because we have been around here a long time and know the spirit as well as the letter of the guidlines/policies is important.

If I find myself taking a side in any further discussions, I'll be sure to put a number next to my "!vote".

"Be seeing you" -- (The Prisoner) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Reggaeton

Gracias for being impartial on the Reggaeton situation. If you look at the evidence that I've presented over the last couple days, along with that of other Spanish speaking contributors, I think you will find it evident that the article's title (as it has been for years) is presently accurate as it relates to common and popular usage. Since you're an admin, I'll have to ask, does using a sockpuppet to vote warrant a banning? Since that seems to be what's going on over on the talk page. Anyway, thanks for being a good Admin. 70.149.187.88 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You really need to quit making such libel comments. You have no proof of what you claim and I’ve already stated the truth. However you can be banned/ blocked for starting an edit war, which is exactly what you’ve done despite being warned. By the way you have offered no support for the anglisised version, you’re all talk but no show. --Noé Æ 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do an IP check on Noe's account and the other one, and the IPs will be related. If an article has a particular title, it makes sense that the title word be correctly spelled throughout the article, that's common sense. So if I ensure that this happens, any edit I make like that is not remotely vandalism or starting an edit war, its keeping the article correct as decided by the consensus on the talk page. The article has read as "reggaeton" for years, unless the title is changed by a consensus vote, the content of the article should remain unchanged as it has always read. Furthermore, Noe should refrain from abandoning the talk page to ask other contributors to block the page or encourage them to delete my supporting facts on the talk page. 70.149.187.88 01:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When you view the talk page for Reggaeton, be sure to click on the history tab to look at the most recent additions as opposed to what's presently up there. All new facts, links and examples that Noe asked for that support why the present page title is correct are being deleted so that other users can't see them. 68.155.69.110 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all deleted talk page content has been restored, no? From what I see at Talk:Reggaeton (including Noé Æ's sources, Damián del Valle's sources, and sources posted most recently by Aleta), I think it's pretty clear that both renderings of the name of this genre are used routinely in reputable English language sources. The unaccented version appears to be more common, and the most neutral way we can choose article titles is to reflect common usage.

I'm not interested in blocking or banning anyone, or checking anybody's IP addresses; none of that should be necessary. Please remember that it's ultimately a very trivial matter, and that redirects are in place to help all readers find the article and learn about the music. Consider also that our policy of favoring the more common name is the fairest and most neutral naming strategy we've found, and that it's applied over thousands of articles, where thousands of people are living quite painlessly with article titles that they might not prefer.

If anybody finds the current situation truly unacceptable, then the next step would be a request for comment on the article. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category moves

I got some categories that need to be moved, all follow-ups to previous article moves (capitalization issues again). Would you be willing to perform those, or should I run them by the category move requests? - Cyrus XIII 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to run category renames through CFD. They've got a whole procedure there, and I've lost time in the past by not following it, because sometimes someone objects, and then you go through the whole process anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool (aesthetic)

Thanks to keeping an eye on this page. There has been an ongoing problem with this kind of IP vandalism. futurebird 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be very... um, cool of me not to keep an eye on it... ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for move.

Eight hours from request till move. Very nice of you to do so and sort out that horrible misspelt name on Galvanic corrosion. Thanks, Waerloeg 10:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

St George

Check out my comments here ... Talk:Saint George (disambiguation). --evrik ^(talk) 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

blink-182/Blink-182

Somebody was nice enough to point out yet another all-lowercase band name during the Matchbox Twenty move discussion. Though I'm done editing most of the articles related to Blink-182, some of the locals are starting to get quite hostile, with the f-word and accusations of "grammar nazism" flying around (see Talk:Blink-182#Typography). Thought I'd give you a call on this. Have a good one - Cyrus XIII 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hi, I received your support on the reggaetón page to include the diacritic on the first word of the article and to state that both spellings appear in the English language. User Sfacets has however begun an edit war and removed the diacritic, and latter on added the sentence that the diacritic is used less often. I’d like your support in defending the accent and removing the redundant information about frequency seeing as how it has already been established that both spellings are widely used in English. The frequency fact is also unnecessary because that’s apparent since the anglicised version dominates the page except for two occasions. Thank you. Link to reggaeton discussion --Noé Æ 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Favour requested

Hi, GTBacchus I'm posting stuff at Wikipedia when I really need to be writing my paper. In order to reduce the temptation for me to get involved, would you do me a favour and add User talk:GordonWatts to your watchlist. He's blocked for disruption at the moment, and his POV would differ quite a lot from yours, I imagine, but I know you have a strong sense of allowing people some dignity.

Gordon is a well-meaning editor, who hasn't a clue how to get along with people who disagree with him, and doesn't make the effort to try to get along with them. He posts hundreds of words, often in different colours to draw attention to them. And he has to argue on every little point. However, his article edits are often helpful, improving word flow, correcting inaccuracies (whether Terri Schiavo was in a hospice or a hospital on a certain date), fixing spelling errors, etc. Unfortunately, he has tried very hard to get links to his own websites put in to the article, and got upset at the opposition, which included a lot of completely unnecessary rudeness and belittling. A community ban was sought, and he argued with everyone, even those who were trying to help him, and posted thousands of words, getting quite disruptive, and lost a lot of the support that he originally had. The ban vote was closed incorrectly, as the community had mostly said either that he couldn't go near anything to do with Terri Schiavo, or that he could edit the Schiavo articles but only post once a day on the Schiavo talk pages. He was told that he couldn't edit the articles, and could post once a day on the talk pages — something which nobody had voted for. He then filed an arbitration case against all the people who had voted against him, and started arguing and wiki-lawyering with the arbitrators. Then he appealed to Jimbo, and was blocked indefinitely for disruption. There was some very bad-taste gloating.[13] [14]

The indefinite block was reduced to a month, but he's still able to edit his talk page, and is still reacting there. He's in danger of being permanently blocked if he mentions his links again, and I don't actually think he'll do it if nobody provokes him by telling him that they're not suitable. He has accepted that the consensus is that he may not add them to articles, and in any case, he doesn't have any greater history of edit warring than other people on the Terri Schiavo article. However, I'm worried that he's going to respond to posts where people tell him that he's not to mention his links, and that it may be used against him to make the block permanent.

In case you're interested, there's discussion here and here. There's also a longish post from me here, which is cross-posted from TenOfAllTrades's talk page. Don't feel under any obligation to wade through any of it, though, as I'm not asking you to unblock Gordon or to "vote" in any discussion. All I'm asking is that you'd keep an eye on his talk page, and discourage people from posting anything that will make him feel he has to respond. (And poor Gordon feels he has to respond to everything!) If people keep up the arguments on his talk page, he'll argue back, saying why they're wrong to say he can't talk about his links, and then it's quite likely that someone will block him for talking about them. But if everyone leaves him alone, and stops mentioning his links even on other pages that he watches, there's a reasonable chance that he'll stop mentioning them. He has already said he'll stop, but he's just not able to not repond when someone argues with him. I've seen you dealing quite kindly and tactfully with people who had trouble "letting go" before. I consider that you played quite a big role in helping Chooserr to evolve from someone who was getting blocked every few days to someone who now has a much greater understanding of how Wikipedia works, and who uses the discussion pages and works with other editors. It's amazing how much difference it can make to an editor to be treated as if his dignity matters, even if he's being blocked. I've asked Bishonen to watch that talk page as well. I'm really not asking for any action: this could be one of the cases where doing nothing is the best possible solution. I'd just like to think that a few people who are not interested in trampling on people's dignity would be watching his page. Thanks. Musical Linguist 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't be spending very many hours online for the next few days, but I've watchlisted the talk page in question, and I'll definitely check in occasionally. Good luck with your paper. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese vandals and sockpuppetry

GTBacchus, I'm at my wits end here. There are a bunch of Japanese highly disruptive editors who keep inserting unsourced material into several articles, among them yakiniku and Anti-Japanese sentiment. I do not know how many of these users are sockpuppets but it seems to me beyond any reasonable doubt that at least this user User:Necmate is a sockpuppet of either User:Nightshadow28 or User:ShinjukuXYZ (but then again, Nightshadow and ShinjukuXYZ might also very well be the same user). If you look at his edit history you will see that he edited every article that Nightshadow and Shinjuku were involved in.

I might have been somewhat uncivil at times dealing with these vandals but I did start out assuming good faith[15], which became really hard to do as they kept on reverting the article without providing any reliable sources. As can be seen in the yakiniku article history, there has been a large amounts of reverts occuring. I might have broken 3RR once on the yakiniku article, but since their edits were not only unsourced, but also almost entirely unintelligible (as English is obviously not their first language), I saw no choice but to revert their edits. When I further looked into these problematic users and their edits, I noticed they were also participating in revert wars on other articles (where they time after time would introduce entirely unsourced, extremely inflammatory, often anti-Korean statements). (See [16], [17], [18].

I beg you for your help. Mackan 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mackan. I'm in a situation where my Internet access has been very limited for the past few days. Please don't think I'm ignoring you; when I get my regular connection restored, this is at the top of my priority list. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I have absolutely no desire to, I feel myself being dragged into several edit wars. I do not want to revert the edits, but I feel I am left with little choice when Japanese revisionists suggest the 200 000 sex slaves employed by the Japanese military were "prostitutes". I hope for an intervention from an admin as soon as possible! Mackan 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see this but still are unable to do something about the problem, I would much appreciate if you could direct me to somebody else who could. I don't know where I should turn but this edit war must stop. Mackan 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, thank you for your efforts so far. There is ongoing revert-warring and probable meat-puppetry (if not sock-puppetry), on both sides. I have just filed an RFCU report at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy. (Previous RFCU reports I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ShinjukuXYZ and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Odst have been inconclusive.) There is enough revert-warring going on now, to warrant such RFCU reports. If you can continue to be involved, it would be very appreciated.--Endroit 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the edit lists! [19], [20]! Can't you at least warn these users? They are constantly edit warring in a bunch of articles. Mackan 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out to Tropicaljet et al that what I wrote here [21] in no way constitutes a personal attack. While no serious editor would label it as such, I fear somebody, who only skims through what I wrote, might be mislead by their comments. Mackan 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: There was one confirmed case of sockpuppetry:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy

(The other two sockpuppetry cases I filed were inconclusive).

All confirmed sockpuppets were duly blocked, and you can consider this case closed for now. Thank you.--Endroit 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

David Wilkie (taxicab driver)

Thank you for moving this article. I have spent much time standardising numerous articles to the taxicab format. TerriersFan 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbarigo

Hello GTBacchus, I wonder whether you could check the talk page for Barbarigo. I've checked out many other naval ships & without exception they have appropriate prefixes. I fail to see why this article should be the exception. Could you please reverse the name change. Thank you. GrahamBould 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yakiniku

I see a couple of problems with this paragraph. First of all, that link to "Western world" makes no sense - what is being claimed here? Second, that external link is in Japanese, and I can't read it. What information am I supposed to be using that link to verify, anyway? The URL looks commercial - is that a website selling something, or what? Linking to the Japanese wikipedia is also problematic, but my first question about it is, what article is that? Can someone provide some hints for the linguistically limited like myself? I'd like to figure out what all there reversions are about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yakiniku is a meaning of roasting(Yaki) meat(Niku) though it is a fundamental matter. And, Yakiniku is a custom of starting at the Meiji Period. The Japanese did not have the custom of eating meat for the influence of the Confucianism. Japan encouraged eating meat to obtain the Western civilization at the Meiji Period.
Can you agree to this part?(Are more explanations necessary?)--ShinjukuXYZ 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling All Cars (The Sopranos episode)

Thank you very much for an extremely fast response to a move request. I appreciate! --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbarigo

GTBacchus, I wonder whether you could look at the talk page for Barbarigo & reverse the Move. Thanks GrahamBould 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Amer Delić

Hello and sorry for not coming here earlier to discuss your closing of this move proposal. I disagree with your decision there: apart from the proposer, there was one user supporting it, and one opposing (me). I don't think that's quite a consensus as per Wikipedia's usual standards, maybe the proposal should have been relisted for a bit longer in order to allow more users to give their opinion. Your move has caused this article to have an inaccurate name, and Gene Nygaard soon removed all the references tho Amer's name that contain the correct diacritic, referring to such actions as "fixing misspelling". Please comment about this damaging situation. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. I guess I'm not seeing what the argument is for using the diacritic in this person's name. According to what people were saying in the move discussion, the media as well as the subject himself use the rendering "Delic". Thus, according to WP:COMMONNAME, that's what we should call him as well. I didn't close the discussion based on a vote count, but rather based on the arguments presented. I didn't see anybody arguing that the rendering "Delić" is commonly used, or even preferred by the subject, but I'd be open to looking at evidence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is unrelated to this situation (in fact, no reference is made to diacritics in those guidelines). This person is from Bosnia where many surnames end with "ić", and his correct name is "Amer Delić" with a "ć" (writing with a normal "c" results in a complete different pronunciation, a wrong and misleading one). His correct name is verifiable as per this Yahoo! search. Although the references without the diacritic far outnumber the ones containing it, these are due to the lack of "ć" on most keyboards, and widespread misknowledge among English speakers of foreign names names containing rather unusual letters. Since "Amer Delić" is his verifiable birthname, that should be the name of the article in order to comply with the 1st pillar of Wikipedia, which vows for accuracy and verifiability in this encyclopedia, rather than promoting and perpetuating the carelessness and inaccuracy of other sources. Regards, Húsönd 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand your position, and I think it's an entirely reasonable one. In processing page moves over the last few months however, I've seen the community choose commonness over correctness time and time again in selecting article names, with regard to diacritics. The ultimate policy source is WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things, and the most relevant guideline stemming from that policy is not actually WP:COMMONNAME, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) (which apparently has got no handy abbreviation — perhaps that's why I failed to cite it above, sorry). That guideline reiterates that we generally only use diacritics that are standardly used in English language sources (like Charlotte Brontë).

You're not the first to disagree with this aspect of our naming conventions, and if you look at the talk page of the guideline on diacritics, you'll see thousands of words of debate on the subject. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to move this article back against our usual practice, unless it's either demonstrated that the form with the diacritic is the common English usage, or else that the community deems the case worthy of making an exception. To that end, you're welcome to file a content RFC, and I can even un-close the move discussion while it runs, if that would help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessments and input request

Hi, GTBacchus. I'm glad to report that a few editors not affiliated with WikiProject Abortion recently helped us to complete our assessments – that's one thing scratched off of our to-do list! However, there's been a few ongoing disputes in the project, including at Template talk:Abortion and Category talk:Methods of abortion. I think the fresh perspectives of a few outsiders could help to find a solution, so, if you have the time to check either of those pages out, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :-) -Severa (!!!) 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Severa. I've added both of those pages to my watchlist, and I'll have a look at the situation. I should have some time either before or after the weekend. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. I'm going on vacation Friday-Sunday so I won't be available until next week really anyway. I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on any of these matters. Thanks again! -Severa (!!!) 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

domain tasting

I am NOT moving the article by copying the content... I am reverting to ad old version of the other article.

The first matter of discussion is how to get the admin who is purposefully tring to ignore the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy to avoid using his status to threaten me with a block because he wants to bully his way into winning. He needs to be stopped pronto, and, frankly, that kind of behavior should really get him removed from admin status, if this encyclopedia is to ever take itself seriously. (See my talk page history for his threats, as well as his admitting on his talk page and the domain kiting talk page that the term is not the most common one).

I tried to ake a discussion, but really there isn't a lot to discuss. The term Rubin prefers is not common, and only a recent neologism by a CEO of a domain company he seems to admire. Every other source in the field uses the other term. Freaking ICANN uses domain tasting, that should settle it right there. DreamGuy 06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your comment on my page: Pretty much, yes. The two articles do not differ much, and the points on which they do differ are incorrect opinions of some people who want to make domain kiting into a real term. Note that even the content at domain kiting says domain tasting is the proper term, the only possible pointof dispute is whether domain kiting is a new and valid term for some SUBSET of the more common domain tasting. Even if it were, which I would strongly argue against, domain tasting is the clear main topic, with kiting as an offshoot. Attempts to get rid of tasting completely by the admin so that the word can be a different one that he himself wants to become prevalent is simply not how things are done here. He's trying to force his opinion of what the term should be onto the rest of the world. DreamGuy 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the latest comment:

I really doubt that there is any need at all for two separate articles, as if domain kiting actually exists as a separate term it's a very recent Wikipedia:Neologism and certainly not notable on its own, as it is primarily 99% domain tasting but with a minor spin. What could you even say there? "See domain tasting but with this one minor change." That's not an article, that's a footnote in an article.

I can understand the complicatd page history being a problem and so forth, but the more important thing to consider here is that we have clearcut policies on how to handle these situations, and that an admin and a couple of other people have abused that. Opening up a discussion for a clear cut issue like this, where the other side even ADMITS that domain tasting is the preferred term in the field but that THEY don't want to use it, means having a discussion where people intentionally ignoring clear policy have just as much say as people following policy. That's a recipe for disaster.

The only way I would agree to stop reverting is if it's guaranteed that the articles be locked as they are now, with domain kiting redirecting to domain tasting, and that the admin won't use his admin powers to undo it even while locked. Reverting is just like any other edits here, and when it needs to be done,it should be done. Asking for the page to be wrong and the information to be wrong just to avoid upsetting people who don't care if it's wrong is not a good strategy. Wikipedia seems to be set up so that anyone who prevails in running through red tape long enough can win even if they are wrong. We need to have the content be right or else there's no point to it. DreamGuy 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that you handled thelatesrt move request rather poorly, as yyou allowed people to claim that the term was common while not asking any of them to follow Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliability. Furthermore you closed the thing within a manner of few days without getting comments from others who had recently commented there (I detailed the reasons it needs to be moved quite thoroughly here adn there and thsose were ignored) as well as outside respected editors who could have come in to help out. So all we get is a couple of people claiming it needs to stay with no evidence ignopring clear evidence to the contrary and you just up and close it. Very poor call, I must say. DreamGuy 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I closed the move request in the prescribed time, and based my decision on every word that was typed in the designated section. If you want to become an admin, close move requests every day, and seek out and read all of the context of each one, even when people don't bother to register an opinion in the survey... then please be my guest. I'm a volunteer, and I'm batting about .950, so I'll sleep just fine knowing you think I made a bad call. Have a nice day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could use some help (again)

Hi, I'd like to ask for your assistance in sorting out some WP:CRYSTAL and MoS related issues at Talk:X Japan. Things appear to be in a deadlock for now and I'd like to prevent any flaring tensions or edit wars (the article has seen a few). Have a good one - Cyrus XIII 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Akko vs Acre, Israel

I request you re-open the debate for the move - as of now, a short time peroid has passed and the voting has not yet picked up more than 4-5 votes. considering that Acre is short for "Saint jean d'acre" and it's also a measurment unit - google searches make for a crappy comparisment. i do believe that Akko, the international Israeli name, is the one you meet when entering the city, and as such it should be the leading one to the article, rather than "acre, israel" which is a funny relic of the crusades. Jaakobou 10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any arguments or evidence that Akko is actually more commonly used in English language sources? That's the best, most neutral criterion we've come up with for naming geographic places, and there's a strong consensus for it. You might disagree with favoring the most common name over the most "correct", but as long as that's our rule, I don't see why this case should be an exception. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Quebec sentiment

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society. Too much heat and too little light at that page. I mention in a response to you there that I think the legitimate and illegitimate criticism should be retained in the article. As I have also noted there, some of the examples don't qualify either as examples of anti-Quebec sentiment or as criticism. John FitzGerald 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the above I have changed one of my replies to you, so if you've read them already you might want to check back. Didn't read carefully enough. Sorry. John FitzGerald 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

East Turkestan Liberation Organization

Hello. I saw you are a member of the Terrorism and Counter-terrorism WikiProject. If you get a change, please take a look at East Turkestan Liberation Organization. Another editor has repeatedly removed mention of this organization's designation as a terrorist organization. KazakhPol 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales in Portland

Jimmy Wales will be speaking at Reed College in Portland, OR this Monday, April 2, at 7 pm in the Vollum lecture hall. The lecture is titled "Wikia Search and the Future of the Internet". The event is open to the public, and it would be great to see you there. Please forward this message to anyone you know who may be interested. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Dmcdevit. :) I would have to take the train down to Portland after work and then hurry back the same night, so I doubt I'll make it, making this the second time I've missed Jimbo in Portland since moving from there to Seattle last summer. D'oh! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

HCI move request

Hi there. I noticed you moved the HCI article from the en-dash version to the hyphenated version as an "uncontested" move. I'd like to contest it, citing the discussion from July 2006 (further up on the talk page). --Alan Au 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't tell which article you're talking about. I move hundreds of pages; can you provide me with a link? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it at Talk:Human-computer interaction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)