Shchekino talk pages edit

Hi, some of the talk pages are now associated with the wrong pages. I’m glad to move them, but I’m not starting unilaterally to avoid conflicts in case you’re already on it. See:

 —Michael Z. 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch, thanks for bringing that to my attention! I went to go fix the talk pages accordingly, but it looks like Eejit43 got there before I could. Everything seems like it's sorted now, but feel free to let me know if anything else needs handling. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 19:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sebastian Aho edit

Hi, thanks for being the closer of the RM. I'll note that part of the closing duties would be to update the incoming links [1] and create a new 2-item dabpage at Sebastian Aho. 162 etc. (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch, thank you for the reminder! I'll take care of this within the next day or so. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 21:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's now done, I've created the DAB and retargeted all of the former Sebastian Aho links in article space. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 22:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fibonacci sequence move request edit

It has been done :) I did the initial retargeting, but left the rest for you. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure of "Umayyad conquest of Hispania" edit

I suggest that the closure of this move discussion as "no consensus" was erroneous. Of the participants who registered an opinion, seven (including the nominator) agreed with the proposed title, versus three opposed. A majority greater than 2 to 1 would normally demonstrate consensus, since it proves that the overwhelming majority of participants both disagree with the current title, and agree on the best alternative. Each reason given in the rationale for closing as "no consensus" effectively agrees with the minority position, even though in each instance two thirds of the participants refuted the reasons given by those opposed to the move. The result of the closure is that the article stays at a title that the majority of participants feel is unacceptable, instead of moving to a title that the majority of participants agreed on... this result seems absurd. What justification is there for maintaining the status quo when it represents only a small minority of the opinions? It reads as if those opposing the move automatically prevail, as long as they present a cogent argument. Surely the threshold for achieving consensus as to the best title cannot be that high. P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P Aculeius: Another overarching theme in the close statement is how many of the points raised by various editors went largely undiscussed or were simply ignored. One can readily see how, from an outsider's perspective, it wasn't a very thorough discussion. A productive consensus is when editors come to agreement and policy clashes are resolved, not just a vote count. "No consensus" is meanwhile not an affirmation of the current title, but an exhortation for further discussion to reconcile the outstanding areas of disagreement. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to both of you for weighing in! These criticisms seem fair and accurate to me. Accordingly, I've overturned my close and relisted the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Not sure how this discussion will end up, but at least it's possible to continue it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saffron terror edit

Can you describe your closure here?

The consensus was against any move, let alone any "rough consensus to move". The non-argument that "term "Saffron terror" was also used to refer to Buddhist terrorism" is not supported by any scholarly source. "that "Hindu terrorism" was a smear term advanced by the BJP" hasn't been disputed because there are no reliable sources that have used this term as the main topic before promotion of this term by BJP.

It is impossible at this stage not to think that you have imposed your WP:SUPERVOTE.

I urge you to undo your page move and let some admin close it. Capitals00 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple participants in the discussion stated that they had found sources using the term "Saffron terror" to describe Buddhist terrorism. This article was linked explicitly in the discussion, and another user reported finding multiple JStor articles that used the term the same way. Further, in the weeks between these arguments being introduced and the RM being closed, no arguments were raised that challenged the claims about "Saffron terror" being used to describe Buddhist terrorism. Thus, I feel it's reasonable to find that the discussion resulted in a consensus in support of that assertion.
As for the argument that "Hindu terrorism" was a smear term: in response to that claim, Ngrams were presented showing the usage patterns of the various terms under discussion since the 1940s. The Ngrams do show a spike in usage of "Hindu terrorism" in recent years, which corroborates the claim that the BJP is promoting the term, but they also show that "Hindu terrorism" has been consistently used for decades, as supporters of the move had asserted. Since the evidence did not bear out the claim that the term "Hindu terrorism" was unused prior to the BJP's recent campaign, I gave that argument less weight in my evaluation. Evaluating and weighting arguments in this way is best practice, per the RM closing instructions.
For these reasons, I feel that my interpretation of those two points was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus that emerged in the RM discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 05:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read again. I said "not supported by any scholarly source". This article was published by GQ Magazine and it is not a scholarly source. It is from 2015 and has failed to convince any scholarly source to make such a connection. It will take good dozens of scholarly sources before even thinking of such a connection.
No source has been provided so far that "Hindu terrorism" was in use (as a main subject) before 21st century.
Again, you must undo your close because you don't have a clear case. I recommend you to read every "oppose" comment because they address each of your points very well. Capitals00 (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does "in use (as a main subject)" even mean? A term is first used when a term is first used, and the first use of this term was definitively and demonstrably not in BJP smear campaigns in the 21st century. The 1946 speech by Mohammad Jinnah using the term is alone strewn across at least half a dozen 20th-century sources, and that's just a single usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That passing mention does not treat the baseless term as main subject of the discussion. Don't litter this talk page with your repeated WP:IDHT like you did all across the talk page. Capitals00 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to know when the term really took off, this article clearly states that it was against the backdrop of investigations into the Samjhauta Express blast of 2007 and the Malegaon blasts of 2008. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it didn't outside BJP and it's affiliates. You can show source from 2007 to confirm your new finding. Capitals00 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't need to; I've already provided a reliable source that states this, and unless you successfully challenge that source at WP:RSN, the statement stands. But here's some further reading. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need to because we are not supposed to rely over your half baked assertions. Capitals00 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not quite convinced it's my assertions that are half-baked. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ModernDayTrilobite: As you will see here, we may be leaving the sphere of the rational. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I won't try to relitigate the entire move discussion here. Bu going by !votes, I count 7 opposes, includng one "strong oppose", and 6 supports (including the nom). How can this be a "rough consensus to move"? It defies all logic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like most Wikipedia discussions, RMs are WP:NOTAVOTE. Accordingly, WP:RMCI instructs RM closers not to simply count the participants on each side, but to evaluat[e] their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and use that evaluation as the basis for their findings. This will, at times, lead to results where the consensus diverges from the numerical majority opinion – particularly when the majority is a narrow one, as it was here. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you reply to the response I had made to your comment above? You haven't addressed how you reached to a consensus, let alone "rough consensus". Capitals00 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To respond to your point above: while you're correct that GQ is not a scholarly source, it is still reliable (as has been found in at least one RSN discussion), so it has value for demonstrating how the term "saffron terror" is used among RS. In any case, the claim that the ambiguity of the term "saffron terror" must be shown by dozens of scholarly sources was never raised or discussed in the RM discussion itself, so naturally it did not feature in my close. Similarly, the claim that "Hindu terrorism" must be a main subject of a source was not made in the RM either.
Additionally, as a clarifying note: twice now, you've emphasized my usage of the phrasing "rough consensus" in my closing statement. The definition of "rough consensus" I use is the one from the last sentence of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, namely: Sometimes the term rough consensus is used to indicate a slight consensus, and the term clear consensus is used to indicate an obvious consensus. Accordingly, my usage of "rough consensus" is meant to indicate my stance that, while I did ultimately find a consensus (by examining and appraising the range of arguments made in the RM discussion itself, as discussed in my closing statement), I also wanted to make clear that it was a close call. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is WP:NOTAVOTE only to the extent that you should discount !vote which are clueless or frivilous in some way. It does no mean that the closer should be passing a judgement on the nature of their opposition. Moreover, the statement 'Opponents of the move largely sought to criticize the proposed title, "Hindu terrorism", rather than to give affirmative cases for retaining "Saffron terror"' is perplexing, because that is exactly what the opponents are supposed to do. It is not a vote between multiple equally-qualified options. If there is no consensus to move, the current title stands by default, good or bad as it may be. Nowhere does WP:RMCOMMENT state that the present page title needs to be defended in a move discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this point I should apologize, as it appears that I was unclear in my statement. I don't believe, and didn't intend to suggest, that opponents of the move have any obligation to defend the current title. When I was drafting my closing statement, I realized that I was saying relatively little about "saffron terror" as a term (and especially little about its strengths). Thus, I wanted to state explicitly that that was a topic the discussion had not extensively covered, to make clear that I wasn't simply ignoring arguments that had been made in support of the current title. I apologize for the confusing presentation of that point in my closing statement. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 16:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started a thread on WP:AN. See here, it is about this closure. Capitals00 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'll take any further comments to that thread, or to MRV if that's where the discussion ultimately ends up. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 02:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On move review: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_April. Capitals00 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media player 2022 edit

The part about Groove Music/Media Player (2022) in the Windows Media Player article hopes that you can help update Groove Music is not exclusive to Windows 10. Windows 11 was also built in and was replaced by Media Player (2022) after 2022. And 2023 At that time, Media Player (2022) has also replaced Groove Music in Windows 10. I hope you can help rewrite part of the description in the Windows Media Player article that mentions Groove Music/Media Player (2022). 2401:E180:8800:F5B5:3C22:C096:500E:CC5E (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good News International Ministries edit

The top hit I get at Google is this one. As I said, too generic a name and too recently notable for one specific thing. I'm requesting you re-open the discussion, so I can bring this evidence. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's likely that your argument has merit, but in my opinion, reopening an RM is a relatively drastic step to take. If you have a broader body of sources you'd be able to provide in support of your argument (i.e., showing that there are other organizations that could be confused with the article subject), I'd be willing to reopen the discussion, but one webpage on its own isn't enough to meet that threshold for me. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page mover granted edit

 

Hello, ModernDayTrilobite. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help with weak supervision edit

Hi, I wanted to ask for your help in with the weak supervision page. I think the current setup is confusing. I don't really understand how to demerge the page or what the process is for doing so. Could you point me in the right direction? --Genusfour (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you're looking to split the topics of weak supervision and semi-supervised learning into separate articles. WP:SPLIT has a rundown of the considerations that go into splitting a page; the "How to properly split an article" section of that page will probably be especially helpful, since that has a step-by-step guide to what splitting a page actually entails in practical terms. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 16:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page moves edit

Hello, ModernDayTrilobite,

When you do a page move, if you are leaving a redirect for the article/main page, could you leave one also for the Talk page? Otherwise, we end up with a lot of broken redirect Talk pages that need to be deleted or fixed. If you just move a page and leave a redirect at the same time (which I think you should do in most cases), then it doesn't require any extra work by an editor or admin to correct. Please consider doing this in the future in order not to create extra work. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This advice goes for Talk page archives as well. Your decision not to leave a redirect when moving Talk:Rich Internet Application ended up creating 4 or 5 broken redirect pages. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies! I'll be more careful about that in the future, and will check through my past round-robin moves to make sure I haven't been leaving behind any problems elsewhere. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 20:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(a couple months later...)

Hi MDT. If you'd like, there is a newer pageswap script, User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap, that adds talk page redirects such as this automatically (among other new features). SilverLocust 💬 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I've taken a cursory look over the new script's extra features, and it sounds like a great tool. In particular, being able to run the swap from Special:MovePage looks like it'll be a big quality-of-life improvement over the older script – I'm looking forward to trying this out. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 21:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mughalsarai Junction railway station edit

  I see that you have acted as closer for the move discussion at Talk:Mughalsarai Junction railway station#Requested move 23 June 2023. In many ways your summary is admirable, but it is also incomplete. You wrote I found that the supporters of the move had a stronger body of additional arguments. Please could you add a summary of those "stronger... additional arguments". -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure thing! My thinking was basically as follows: once the WP:COMMONNAME question was factored out, each side of the discussion had one other notable argument. Those arguments were:
  • Some supporters of the move noted their preference for "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" due to it being the station's official name. While official status is weighted less strongly than which name is the COMMONNAME, the lack of an apparent COMMONNAME means that this argument does gain relevance. There were several people who voiced this line of argument, but it was advanced most cogently by Kashmiri, who noted that Unlike for a locality or a landmark where vernacular usage carries much more weight, this is primarily an official establishment where official naming by its owner does matter a lot. On the whole, the official-name argument seemed in keeping with the spirit of the WP:CRITERIA, had a variety of proponents, and does not appear to have been disputed except along the inconclusive COMMONNAME grounds, so I lent it a fair amount of weight.
  • In opposition to the move, it was argued that the station's article title should be WP:CONSISTENT with the town article at Mughalsarai (a title which was upheld by recent RM consensus). However, this argument was challenged by another participant in the discussion, who noted that there doesn't always need to be consistency between the titles of transit stations and the localities in which they are based; the example of airports was given as an analogy. While this argument too was aligned with the WP:CRITERIA, it was more disputed and was supported by relatively few participants, so I weighed it more lightly.
Thus, the overall balance of arguments appeared to favor the move. I'll expand my closing statement to include this more detailed rationale as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The good summary that you produced helps users to understand the reason for the decision. The nature of the move discussion was that the reasons that you talked about were interspersed between posts about assessing the commonly-used English-language name and were not immediately obvious.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please undo your closure and relist this discussion? There were only two other participants, which is not what would normally constitute a consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not uncommon for an RM discussion to only ever reach a small audience, so in my view, it is possible for a lightly attended RM discussion to attain consensus (even if that consensus is only a narrow one). However, as the specific Theodoros Pangalos discussion hadn't been previously relisted, I think you raise a fair point that the discussion could benefit from more eyes on it. Accordingly, I've reverted my closure and relisted the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 18:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for nothing edit

Your ridiculous closure/conclusion re hyphen vs. ndash recently in the title name form, when the MoS is clear, the counter is not COMMONAME it is random & thoughtless & inconsistent book font publisher applications that you and others want to twist to interpret to support COMMONAME. I am not going to try to argue w/ your ridiculous conclusion nor respond here if you do. And I will not enter wikilawyering w/ an appeal. But I will protest in the only way I can ... Hope your decision was worth it. Hello & bye. --IHTS (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many cases on Wikipedia where we use the styles that prevail in sources, even if the MOS would normally dictate otherwise. (Sometimes these divergences are even enshrined in the MOS themselves, as with MOS:TMCAPS.) If publishers' decision not to use the hyphen was random & thoughtless, the result is still that the hyphen was widely used in sources, and that usage (regardless of motive) was what undergirded the COMMONNAME argument.
In any case, the hyphen/dash question occupied relatively little space in the overall RM, and consensus can change. Once the dust has had some time to settle, a follow-up discussion that focuses specifically on the hyphen/dash issue could be worthwhile. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM closure edit

Regarding this closure, there was burden of proof within those users who oppose it. Because, unless (that's a big unless) there is "overwhelming" sources to demonstrate a consistent variant style, the MOS should be followed. You said there's no consensus, which means they have NOT provided overwhelming evidence for their claim. Then how can you still keep that name? Since this was a special case and an admin's role was discussed, the call should have been taken by an admin. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the RM discussion, a substantial proportion of participants laid out plausible arguments that the evidence was sufficiently overwhelming to justify an exception to the usual guidance of MOS:INITIALS. To throw out those arguments just because they fell short of consensus support would be a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. There were also people who argued that the evidence didn't meet the "overwhelming" standard, of course; frankly, I feel that the evidence they provided was weaker than the evidence provided by the pro-exception camp, but because (as you rightly note) there's a high bar for diverging from the MOS, I found the opposition was at least robust enough to prevent an outright consensus not to move from forming. To put it another way, my finding of "no consensus" was "no consensus, relative to the standards of evidence required", rather than "no consensus, in a vacuum".
Additionally, some procedural points. First, per WP:NOCON, an RM discussion that ends in a "no consensus" result means that the most recent prior stable title should be retained. The pre-RM title here had been stable for over a year, and no argument was ever made against its stability, so there's no cause to move the article in a no-consensus situation. Second, per WP:RMNAC, non-admins are not just allowed but encouraged to close requested move discussions if they are knowledgeable in matters of titling policy, so there's no basis to the claim that "the call should have been taken by an admin". ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 18:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move review for R Praggnanandhaa edit

An editor has asked for a Move review of R Praggnanandhaa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Columbus Xoggz move close edit

You recently closed a move request I started at Talk:Ohio Xoggz#Requested move 16 September 2023. You wrote: "The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants did not feel that the "Columbus Xoggz" name had attained sufficient notability to override the general practice of preferring the final name of defunct organizations."

I don't agree with this close, and your closing message doesn't seem to match what was actually said in the discussion. There was one short oppose message (which did not address the notability of the Columbus Xoggz name at all), and then one message which seemed to support the move, as it gave an example of another article which is known by a name other than its final name. I think the discussion should be re-opened. Could you explain your thoughts? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right – when I was analyzing the last user's comment, I somehow mixed up which name came first in the organization's history. 100% a mistake on my part, and I apologize for the error. I'll reopen and relist the discussion now. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 13:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries; thank you! –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Lady Six Monkey edit

  Hello! Your submission of Lady Six Monkey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chidgk1 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your review! I've replied to your comments at the nomination entry. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Lady Six Monkey edit

On 25 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lady Six Monkey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lady Six Monkey was the only one of her four siblings not to be sacrificed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Six Monkey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lady Six Monkey), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hook update
Your hook reached 16,952 views (706.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talkcontribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Holidays!! edit

Dantus21 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello ModernDayTrilobite, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM closure at Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present) edit

Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! WP:NPOV was one of the reasons behind the move, but the WP:COMMONNAME argument also played a major role in my decision. Editors made a compelling case that the term Guayana Esequiba was not widely used by English-language sources - on this point, I was particularly swayed by DankJae's Google News results and Unknown Temptation's spot-check of different outlets. Both of these arguments were raised by several participants in the RM, which suggested to me that they had a relatively wide degree of acceptance.
As for the margins: you're correct that the sides were roughly numerically even, but I think a closer look at the arguments indicates a stronger consensus to move the page than the numbers alone would suggest. Andrew Davidson's oppose was built on the assertion that "Essequibo dispute" is the English-language COMMONNAME, so while he was opposed to the proposed title of "Guyana–Venezuela crisis", he nevertheless appeared to support moving away from the Guayana Esequiba title. Meanwhile, GreatLeader1945's argument (that articles on historical crises are titled with a single region name, essentially an appeal to WP:CONSISTENT) didn't strike me as very strong; the examples she cited were all cases where there's an established historiographical COMMONNAME, whereas this article required us to pull together a descriptive title based on more scattered references, so I was skeptical of that argument's applicability. (If we're examining the numbers, I think it's also worth considering CMD's comment, which supported a move away from Guayana Esequiba but was neutral on preferred destination.) Let me know if this answers your questions, or if there's anything else I can clarify. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! I was hoping to answer earlier, I'm so sorry about the delay. I understand better your rationale, thank you very much for the explanation. Although I still disagree with it, I think it's reasonable. At any rate, I was still thinking about start a move review and wanted to let you know beforehand, if that was alright. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for following up! Even if we still do disagree, I'm glad I was able to make my thought process clearer. No objections from my end if you'd like to file an MRV. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upano Valley sites edit

I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faulty close edit

This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - you're absolutely right. I don't recall what led me to weigh the wikiproject's style guidance so heavily, but looking back on it, I agree that it was a clear error on my part. I'm not sure if there's anything concrete I could do about it at this point (I'd feel a bit dodgy revising a close I made months ago), but I wanted to at least confirm that I've received your message and have no intention of making a similar mistake again. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Upano Valley sites edit

On 13 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Upano Valley sites, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A brownie for you! edit

  You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]