Open main menu

Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.)


Nomination of George W. Bush and the Iraq War for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George W. Bush and the Iraq War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush and the Iraq War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Please pull the Sarah Brown RM for a second

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The format of the next RM is under discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George H. W. Bush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


I've noted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closure. There is no way that was a clear-consensus issue. Please revert. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. With all due respect, yes, it was. There wasn't a single policy-driven argument made against the move, other than the reasonable concerns about what the scope of the article would or should be. Those concerns were explicitly dealt with in the close. "Involuntary celibacy" literally means someone wants to have sex but isn't able to; it is obvious that this is not the same thing as "incels". (I know plenty of sweet young ladies who would just love to be married, but haven't found the right guy yet. They're involuntarily celibate. They are not followers of the incel ideology. And the bulk of the article doesn't address their situation.) I suppose my close most mirrors the opinion of User:Rhododendrites and User:Kaldari. Given the scope of the article, oppose !votes such as yours didn't apply. Barring opinions like yours, I struggle to see a single oppose !vote from anyone that is backed in policy. User:SmokeyJoe's would be, of course, but was left unsourced (or worse, contradicted by sources). User:Willwill0415 made great points, though the article wasn't really about "involuntary celibacy" so much as "incel" ideology, so a new article would have to be written at the former. And since the idea the article is about has only a little to do with actual involuntary celibacy, User:VQuakr's appeal to WP:UCRN works to support rather than oppose a move. Red Slash 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That is absolute bull. There is no possible way you can claim there is clear consensus to move. No way. You should self-revert. No possible way anyone could claim this MR was either clear consensus nor not controversial. No freick way. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If you're discounting votes or interpreting them to mean the inverse of what they say, then I'd say that's more or less the definition of not clear consensus. Writ Keeper  15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Add to the fact that you have had several long time editors, including two admins, tell you that you've made a mistake, it should be obvious that it is neither clear consensus nor non-controversial. If you can't see that, the discussion at ANI needs to be re-opened. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A lot of people disagreeing doesn't make a move request's consensus unclear; those who opposed said things like "this is a neologism" (irrelevant per WP:AT), "we should write about a movement, not people" (irrelevant, because the article is still about a movement), "'incel', as opposed to 'involuntary celibate', isn't notable" (it is, quite obviously, and if it isn't, that's for AFD to decide), or "I don't feel like I have to explain myself" (yes, yes please do)... It was a very clear, focused consensus. (Also, discarding irrelevant !votes is precisely what a move closer is supposed to do. This is why humour was never going to be moved to humor. A bunch of Americans shouting "support!" doesn't move the needle at all against even one who says "oppose per WP:RETAIN". )Red Slash 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Red, I also think this was a stretch, especially considering the relisting period wasn't over and comments were still coming in. Would you be willing to move back and let the relisting run its course?--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the high level of participation ongoing in the thread, I think it would be better to reopen it and move it back. I think that is the best avenue going forward. Valoem talk contrib 20:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I too prefer to see admins close contentious discussions -- or, as the case may be, discussions on contentious subjects -- but I also don't think there was anything wrong with the close otherwise and would say as much at the [seemingly inevitable] MRV. Regarding "high level of participation", prior to it being closed there was 1 edit on May 8, 1 edit on May 7, and 0 edits on May 6. Maybe it should've been allowed another full 7 days, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at recent participation at this formerly active discussion and conclude it had died down sufficiently to close. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Red Slash, how about the issue of every other page named after any sort of phenomenon, none are named for the people 0 eg no "white supremacist" page etc.? So it goes against established naming guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Cas, this has been established independent of this RM. The article is about the subculture called "incels". A handful of people want it to be about the broader phenomenon that could be called "involuntary celibacy," that that has been shot down repeatedly. It's the subculture which has received a glut of news coverage as of late, not merely the phenomenon of people who cannot find romantic/sexual partners. I supported keeping it at its original location when it wasn't clear what the future of the page was -- the fraught combined concept of people who cannot find a partner and the subculture that takes that in misogynistic, and sometimes violent directions -- but as soon as it became clear it was exclusively about the latter, it seemed clear that we should name it after the subculture that is the subject of the page. Frankly I don't know why it was controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You know why. Admin bias and IRC cabal groupthink. The article is clearly about the incel subculture and not the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy. I am relieved to see it is now properly titled, at least, if the body of the article was not going to be about its purported title. Aquinassixthway (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Demonym (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to American
Zaragoza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Castile

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page moveEdit

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sig fixEdit

Please fix your sig to use modern HTML; it's triggering the "lint" cleanup lists, and adding pages to the non-HTML5-compliant list for no good reason, an impediment to our migration efforts to pure HTML5. It's a quick fix:

  • Old: [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]]Red Slash (this looks awful to anyone on bad-HTML patrol)
  • New: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red </span>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]]Red Slash
  • Even better: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]]Red Slash (red isn't semantically a property of a trailing whitespace character).

 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature as requested by SMcCandlish! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeedly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Crayola crayon colors for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Crayola crayon colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Expulsion of the ChagossiansEdit

I'm afraid I find this edit rather unhelpful. No edit summary, and it occurred mere seconds after 23:56, 24 July 2018‎ Andrewa (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (15,414 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Andrewa moved page Talk:Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago to Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians: RM), and before I had the chance to close the RM as I would otherwise have done (with an edit summary of moved).

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Andrewa, please revert me. I was just checking the backlog, and without checking to see how recently it had been done, I saw that the move was performed and the request unclosed, so I closed it. I meant absolutely no offense. I apologize. Red Slash 00:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. All good. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

East Timor: Move ReviewEdit

A Move Review is being considered for East Timor. WP:NAC requires editors who conduct NACs to have "the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented". It appears that no review of the evidence was undertaken prior to writing the reasons for closure of the move request. Hence, I (the Nominator), am following WP:MR and seeking information directly from you beforehand. I welcome dialogue. You have been involved in previous contentious closures. In this case, it appears that you, as Closer, did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, because you do not appear to have considered the applicable policies and guidelines. For instance, both WP:MPN and WP:TIND should have been considered. As indicated in section 5 of the Talk page, a process for future Move Requests was being considered. I invite your response within five days. Te Karere (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for East TimorEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of East Timor. 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. Te Karere (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


As you were the nom of the RM discussion and other editors who have had major/recent involved have been notified, I'm notifying you of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Red Slash. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page moves on Trump articlesEdit

Dude... you know that these articles are under discretionary sanctions, right? You're moving these pages without discussion and against previous consensus. You need to move these back before I receive more reports from other editors and you wind up being dragged to a noticeboard. Your moves are going to get you in trouble, man... I don't want to see that happen. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page mover revokedEdit

Hello. I've revoked your page mover rights, as I see a pattern inconsistent with this right. This would fall under WP:PMRR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Were there any moves made that were inappropriate? Red Slash 21:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
How did you read the consensus on Trump? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I carefully examined the talk page prior to moving. There has been no full move request in over a year and a half. I imagined that WP:BRD would apply in the case that someone still disagreed. My rationale for acting boldly was to avoid a similar scenario to this one, which wasted a lot of people's time. Apparently that time-saving measure doesn't work here. No worries; I've started, participated in and closed quite literally hundreds of move requests, so another one is no biggie. I just would love to keep my tools to allow me to keep closing requests like this one which required the tools. Red Slash 21:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll be honest I'm not at all impressed with this move - this is not what EM is for. And another relevant thing, the last thing we need at this moment is rogue actors going all bold over Trump pages. So you can consider this a rushed removal while we straighten this out. I'm going to review some more moves, including any which are justified with "I do not like this title and think it stinks", so bear with me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
OK I've had a closer look. I'm not going to take anything back or harp on too much but I will put the flag back for now. And you'll get some added comments because I'm still not impressed. Please consider when it's appropriate to use the EM flag in constrast to ordinary page moves. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Please use more appropriate descriptive summaries. Please respect consensus, previous discussions and the RM process. Please be extra careful with controversial topics. And please be sure to take a refresh of Wikipedia:Page mover. I'll save the lecture for next time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What is "EM"? The "EM flag"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, PM. EM is the internal jargon for the group, like sysop is for admins: Special:ListUsers/extendedmover -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Talk/TalkEdit

  Talk:Talk/Talk, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Talk/Talk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Talk/Talk during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#ChristianEdit

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crashings.jpgEdit


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dawnescapes.jpgEdit


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

George W. Bush (painter) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George W. Bush (painter). Since you had some involvement with the George W. Bush (painter) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nylon; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Andy Dingley, dude, you're trying to template someone you reverted who made the correct decision based on multiple Wikipedia policies. See Talk:Nylon for the details. Red Slash 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Kildin Sami orthographyEdit

Hi Red Slash, I'm going to ask you about the same thing that I discussed with StraussInTheHouse a bit earlier today. I suggest reopening the move discussion you closed as "no consensus" at Talk:Kildin Sami orthography and/or following up with the required cleanup after the close: there were a large number of associated moves (seen here) performed just before the opening of this request, and most or all would need to be reverted in the event of "no consensus"--even though or especially because, as you wrote, there is no consensus "to move to this or any other title". Please consider processing the moves made necessary by the close, or consider letting the request move into the backlog naturally until someone is able to take care of it. Thank you, Dekimasuよ! 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I can't find the articles you're referring to. It's not anywhere on that talk page that I could see. Red Slash 20:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean. WP:RMCI states very clearly that a discussion about moving A to B cannot affect page C. Another move request is necessary. That move request, if it results in "no consensus"... MUST result in a move back to the longstanding title. It seems likely that that'll be the result, but I would be contravening a Wikipedia guideline that I myself wrote if I moved Sámi people, among other articles, to their unaccented titles without a request there. Red Slash 20:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I do not agree that this falls under WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages, which would relate to new moves of pages discussed in the request. Rather, the undiscussed moves were clearly controversial in light of the lack of consensus in the closed discussion, and thus they are subject to immediate reversion under WP:RMUM. The guidelines are written to prevent moves from taking place by fait accompli, so returning the pages to the status quo ante is not contrary to WP:RMCI (which is an explanatory page, not an official guideline, correct?). Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there are reasons why Sámi people should exist but Northern Sámi orthography shouldn't. No one really discussed those moves within this move request. Please file a new move request to restore the prior consensus. Red Slash 17:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia move closureEdit

Hi Red Slash, sorry, but would you be willing to reconsider your closure at Talk:Republic of Macedonia? Obviously you're right in finding a consensus "not to move" at this present time, but I would have thought there was also already quite a strong consensus to "move if and when" the naming becomes official. If we go by your closure, we will have to go through yet another full move discussion in a week. A lot of additional weiting time and paperwork just for process' sake? I can't really see why this wasn't closed with something like "on hold, consensus to move when X happens". Could you explain why you didn't see such a consensus? Fut.Perf. 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I didn't respond promptly. "Wait to move" as a closure would've directly violated WP:THREEOUTCOMES, which I wrote specifically to ensure that move requests have a predictable pattern of transparent results. It would've also violated WP:CRYSTALBALL. Red Slash 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Red Slash, you may be interested in a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia RM which is related to your work. There is a question of how the community discussions can be reconciled with the wording of Arbcom's motion, which specifies how an RfC ought to be carried out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

T9 (predictive text)Edit

Per MOS:TENSE, we use present tense for software that has not ceased to meaningfully exist. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mulan (1998 film)Edit

Why is Mulan (1998 film) proetected? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure. I have no ability to protect or unprotect pages. Red Slash 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
the protection was applied by you? (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Old uploadsEdit

Hey, twelve years back you uploaded these tiny little glyphs. Are they useful for anything (in which case they should go on Commons, along with a descriptor of why they're useful) ? Or should I just delete them? DS (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Blast from the past! No, I used them in a long-deleted template. Thanks for the nostalgia - I've downloaded them now so they can be painlessly deleted. Thank you for the heads up! Red Slash 07:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You can ignore that last message I postedEdit

Hi, i posted a message on your talk page earlier saying you accidentally took some songs off the List of songs containing the I-V-vi-IV progression that should have been there. I then realized that those songs only use it for brief periods. My apology. You were right. Thank you for working to clear up the list. Once again, I’m very sorry for accusing you of doing anything wrong. Best wishes. Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all, Needforspeed888. We're all trying to do the best possible in a field where there just isn't a lot of impartial high-quality third-party sources. Red Slash 23:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Move Request for G.I. Generation?Edit

Now that the RFD has closed, can I go ahead and make a request to move G.I. Generation to Greatest Generation (cohort)? It seemed like the old move request had NPOV issues, so I'm wondering if the move request can also be listed on the NPOV Noticeboard? I'm not sure how this works. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Can you explain how you determined there was no consensus at Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019?

The way I see it, in the main survey the majority wanted a change (19 wanted change, 11 opposed change), and in the secondary survey Chairperson (my 3rd choice, BTW), was clearly favored over the second choice (Chairman), by a factor of 2 to 1. How did you see it? --В²C 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon rereading your close I see you essentially categorized the !votes into three groups: opposed, support proposed title, and support alternative, and saw about equal support for each, so concluded there was no consensus among those. Fair enough, but surely adding the "support proposed title" and "support alternative" showed consensus favoring change, as I noted above. One of the participants noticed this, and hence initiated the secondary survey, which clearly showed consensus for Chairperson over Chairman. So I'm asking you to change your close to Consensus for Chairperson, or, at least revert. Thanks. --В²C 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
В²C-saying "consensus favoring a change" is misleading. The close rightly points out that no matter what option is chosen, about 2/3 would oppose it. That textbook lack of consensus. Let's drop it. --Netoholic @ 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not misleading to say consensus favored change. It's a fact. You can say the original survey did not make clear to what it should be changed, but that's not "no consensus" for change. What IS misleading is to interpret support for A as opposition to B and C, which is what you did when concluded that for each choice "about 2/3 would oppose it". For example, I supported "Chair (officer)", but am not opposed to Chairperson, and certainly support it over Chairman. This was not obvious from the original survey, but determining that was the point of the secondary survey, which did its job, and Red Slash seemed to ignore the clear favoring of Chairperson there. --В²C 20:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Red Slash, I think we need an admin to close this, or perhaps several editors or admins. What you've done is to allow vote-splitting to override the consensus to move the title away from chairman. I would say there's consensus to move it to chairperson, but because of a few people choosing chair, you've allowed it to stay where it is. Please revert the close. SarahSV (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
SarahSV-this is already the second no-consensus close, and the second closer being harassed on their talk page. Time to let it go. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It's supposed to be by strength of argument, not !votes. This is the second no-consensus close in a row and I could see it coming based on usage. I had mentioned only using chairperson vs chairman rm only but was shouted down. If in 6 months, someone wants to try a straight up Chairman vs Chairperson, perhaps it will change, perhaps not. You could even sweeten the pot in 6 months and agree that the opening line would read Chairperson (usually chairman or chair) etc... maybe that will get some editors to change their minds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also concerned by this close, as it doesn't appear to align with the discussion, where most !votes were based on whether or not the original name was acceptably gender-neutral. Preference between gender-neutral options is secondary and should have been evaluated after determining whether consensus to move existed. This one should be closed by an admin. Safrolic (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Red Slash. I'd ask you to consider something in addition to the comments above: besides the obvious (BADNAC #2), conversation seemed to be active and ongoing when you closed the discussion. At the time of the first close, 26 editors had participated. During the two days between the first unclose and your re-close, there were another 70+ posts from about 25 editors (5 of whom had not participated before). One editor pinged the 25 editors who had previously participated. Another editor posted invitations on the talk pages of 15 editors who had participated in the prior RMs from years ago. I don't think it's fair to the editors who were pinged or received talk page invites to have the discussion closed so soon afterwards. I'll note also that the two editors above who see a consensus for chairperson did not !vote for chairperson. I also voted for chairperson, and I also think there is consensus for that choice, but most of all, I did not think the discussion was over. The most recent ranked choice vote was posted just eleven minutes before you closed the discussion (expressing support for chairperson, incidentally). If it didn't have consensus yet, it was certainly proceeding in that direction. Clearly, a couple dozen editors were still interested in this matter, even after the first close. Why stop them? Thanks for reconsidering. Levivich 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to relitigate this right now, but suffice it to say that the closure will not be self-reverted. "This one should be closed by an admin" has no basis in policy, for what it's worth. Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title, at the timeframe of your choosing. Red Slash 21:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Two last quick points: WP:BADNAC refers explicitly to closures at AfD, not RM; also, we don't count votes, and no one was able to convincingly prove (via sourced points that align with our policies) that either "chairperson" or "chair" (or both of them) is as well-attested as "chairman". Red Slash 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree BADNAC is not the reason to revert, but if you're not persuaded to reconsider by the other reasons given above by a number of different editors, unfortunately WP:MR is the only recourse remaining. --В²C 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Your "Two last quick points" are suggesting a possible supervote factor (rather than a reading of consensus). Please save the community a lot of time and effort and revert your close, because the grounds for reversal here at MR are about as strong as I've ever seen. --В²C 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You write "no one was able to convincingly prove" but you also terminated the discussion, a little more than ten minutes after the most-recent post. Twenty-five editors making seventy posts over two days doesn't persuade you that discussion was active and ongoing? If it does, then what was the benefit of stopping that discussion? Also, is "convincingly prove" the standard for moves? "Convincing" to whom? Rather than offering answers, your responses have raised more questions for me. Levivich 21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Red Slash, this will have to go to MR if you don't revert yourself, with all the waste of time that that entails. Please do us all a favour and undo your close so that discussion can continue. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It'll go to WP:MRV, just like Incel, East Timor, Islamic terrorism, etc. I'm used to threats of move reviews by now. No worries. There was no consensus and I will not be bullied into pretending we have one or that just a little more discussion would have created one. Red Slash 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Move review for ChairmanEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Chairman. 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. SarahSV (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Please give this another look. I really don’t get it.

If you would reconsider or expand on your reasoning, that would be helpful.

Thanks, —В²C 20:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure. MrClog (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you Red Slash 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussionEdit

There's a discussion about you on the Administrators' noticeboard.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It spans two threads. [3] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y'all Red Slash 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:MRVw00tMRVw00t.pngEdit


The file File:MRVw00tMRVw00t.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Isle of NossEdit

I'm a little bit unsure why you put The fact that "Noss" would be the best name for this island's article if nothing else called "Noss" existed was not in question. From the sources I had provided surely there was enough evidence to support the claim that "Isle of Noss" was the best title. At Talk:Isle of Skye#Requested move 5 June 2019 there was clear consensus to move to Isle of Skye but not to remove the island's primacy for "Skye" alone. Wouldn't something like that there is a consensus that the island isn't primary for plain "Noss" therefore a move is needed and therefore at minimum "Isle of Noss" would be natural disambiguation. However this doesn't affect the outcome since it was still moved so you're free to leave you're closing statement as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I mean, I mostly wanted to clarify that I had read and was acknowledging the opposer. The move request over at Skye, which I had not in fact read, is an interesting parallel. I suppose I should have said that it was questioned but not proven by any means. Thank you for your kind response. Red Slash 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yes indeed the opposer's arguments were strong but surely so were mine so there's no consensus that "Isle of Noss" is the best title (but because of ambiguity the move was needed) now if the status quo was that the island was at "Isle of Noss" (but plain "Noss" still redirected to it) and Griceylipper had had filed a RM to move it to plain "Noss" and I'd opposed then it to would have been closed as no consensus but the other 2 editors would probably have suggested putting the DAB at the base name anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    I slightly reworded it. So thank you again! Red Slash 22:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in the United StatesEdit

Hi, could you revisit your RM close at Puerto Ricans in the United States? It appears the proposed title had 3 supporters and 1 oppose. The proposed title also avoids the problem you cite as to whether Puerto Rico is "in" the United States.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that there was real consensus either way, but I don't have a dog in the fight, and I respect you tremendously, so I'll revert it. Red Slash 18:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Inter MilanEdit

Considering your conclusion at Talk:Inter Milan, why was the article even moved in the first place? It started off at F.C. Internazionale Milano and was moved to Inter Milan based on faulty arguments. If there can truly be no consensus when good evidence is presented, then that suggests to me that the original move was an error. – PeeJay 08:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For 7 years and over 4 RN requests you have badgered editors to your point of view. Dozens of repeated none-policy based edits pressurising - yes pressuring others. Each of the previous 4 decisions over 6 1/2 years have been fully in line with en-WP article naming policy requirements. Neither the relevant policies or the evidence has changed in that time. The decision today is correct and was inevitable, regardless of how it is expressed - it is accurate that there is no consensus. There is no consensus because the policy has not changed. Look, it isn't about the numbers of !votes - it is about conforming to policy and the weight of evidence has been yet again proved robust. Rocking up every year knowing that neither policy or evidence has altered looks like bad faith. It is also clearly an indication of a WP:Battle approach, as is accusing various innocent editors of dishonesty. This has to stop. The article is where it is and fully conforms to policy. It is clear that you don't like it but you well know from many unconnected discussions you have had on other topics that that is not an argument which carries any weight.
@Red Slash - as an experienced RN contributor, can you advise any guidance on handling repeated requests by the same group of editors using non-policy based arguments / defective view of policy? Is it acceptable to have this discussion annually when policy has not changed? I'm sure I read somewhere that this was considered disruptive editing. I cannot find it, sadly. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Of the last four RMs, I initiated one of them, and none of the others were at my behest. If someone starts the discussion, I'm going to do my damnedest to make my case, and if people make arguments that completely ignore the rebuttals I've made, I'm going to remind them. Anyway, I don't think an average of one RM discussion a year is overkill; it's a barometer to see where community opinion lies. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that's your problem, not mine. Furthermore, saying our arguments are not supported by policy is a downright lie. We use the same policies as you, just from a different perspective, and we even have WP:NCST to go by, which you seem to conveniently ignore or casually dismiss every time. – PeeJay 11:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am the 3rd editor you have accused of dishonesty. I have removed your personal attack here which is inexcusable on an uninvolved User's talk page. You need to get a grip on your hostility. BTW, go check it out - I used WP:NCST to counter your claims. Please now respect my wish to disengage from further discussion with you at this venue. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaky caldron, there is no hard and fast rule against re-proposing a move, even if consensus were emphatically united. There is no reason why the move should not be raised again later. It is frustrating, to be sure, but it's just the way these things work. (One particular article took EIGHT REQUESTED MOVES to get moved to a stable title - so sometimes these repeated moves are worthwhile after all.) Thank you for defending my honor on this talk page. Red Slash 23:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks RS. I did remove the clear personal attack made above - "downright lie" using (Personal attack removed) but I see the OP has restored it. It is a recurring thing in his arguments, sadly and I don't want your TP tainted by further vituperative attacks. Thanks for the guidance. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • PeeJay, I recognize the original title, but a move request was duly made, passed, and carried out seven years ago. You even participated in that discussion, I see. I cannot, have not, and would not revisit that close from seven years ago. I only can see what's in front of me. Consensus at one time determined that Inter Milan should be the title. Consensus has not yet determined at any moment from that point on that it should be moved to the long version. I do not know what mean or cruel remarks Leaky is referring to, and I have no desire whatsoever to check it out, but please stay civil on my talk page. Thank you. Red Slash 23:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Red Slash, could you please clarify what templates {{Myrm}} (2, 3, 4) are used for? These templates are not linked from any how-to page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I use {{myrm}} to request moves. I found it easier than the normal template. I have never (or nearly never) used the other three. Red Slash 03:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Washington (city)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington (city). Since you had some involvement with the Washington (city) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Tacoma" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tacoma. Since you had some involvement with the Tacoma redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

Red Slash, in regard to your closure at Talk:Kawésqar#Requested move 4 September 2019, I would have rebutted the long-term significance, but I didn't think it needed rebutting since it was so ridiculous. Think about it... how can a people have more long-term significance than the language they speak? It's like saying that the people were around a lot longer than the language they speak, which is ridiculous, isn't it? Judging by that and by the other arguments, how could you conclude a consensus to move as proposed in that debate??? P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 10:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, while I respect you personally as an editor, I think that you're mistaken about the meaning of long-term significance. The noun is "significance". When we look for a topic with greater long-term significance, we are looking for greater significance. (What kind of significance? Long-term significance.) In other words, we don't measure which article has more long-term significance by checking dates. If Bob has twenty burgundy cars and you have ten fire-engine red cars, we should still be able to say that Bob has more red cars than you. They aren't redder than yours, but he has more cars.
Anyway, I am not here to argue the move, but it absolutely was a convincing argument that would've required some good arguing against it. Given the lack of good arguments to have a dab page there, it wasn't that hard of a decision. Red Slash 00:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been very busy offline. Your points are well-taken, and though we disagree about your consensus assessment, I will not pursue the matter any further. (if you know what I mean !>) P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 00:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Red Slash".