Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited April 2003, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You are one of several people that have tried to change it from "international spelling" to "British" spelling. Please join the discussion on the talk page [1] so a proper consensus can be formed. DreamFocus14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the very kind note at move review. Note that most of those !voting to overturn were also participants in the discussion, so your !vote is just as valid as theirs. There is no degrading of people because of how they voted in the RM. there are already cases of opposed votes who voted to endorse, and support-move voters who voted to overturn. Anyway, I do appreciate the kind words especially after taking so much heat. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Gulf War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm puzzled by your comment, "There is no evidence that the lowercase form predominates", at the NBA draft RM. Nobody claimed that the lowercase form predominates. That is not a relevant criterion at MOS:CAPS. But if it was, we could easily produce the evidence, because in fact lowercase does predominate, in sentences, which is what matters, as you can see if you follow the links from the n-gram page you linked, to the books. So I'm wondering where you're coming from on this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the move should be decided based on whether the NBA Draft is a proper noun or not. I think it is, you think it isn't--hey, we disagree. I don't think the ngram supports the hypothesis that it's a common noun. In general, as per MOS:CAPS#Trademarks, don't we capitalize proper nouns? I know it is commonly treated as a proper noun; is it treated more commonly as one? I don't know, and you may well be right that it's actually more common to leave "draft" uncapitalized. But if there's evidence to prove your claim, the ngram isn't it. With respect, I dissent. Red Slash08:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giant otter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vocalization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Airbus
Because Airbus is European it is best to keep the spelling in British English; US English is just fine for Boeing.
The reason those particular language phonetics were chosen is that the Airbus consortium includes those countries. Ex nihil (talk)05:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Ex nihil, the guideline you're referring to, WP:TIES, only refers to national varieties of English, and Europe isn't a nation. We have no pre-existing preference about national varieties unless you're talking about (for example) a British company with strong national ties to the UK (or an Australian company with ties to Australia, etc.). I saw there was inconsistency in which version was used, so I switched it all to U.S. English. Nevertheless, in this particular case, you were right to revert; there's been a template for some time on the talk page claiming UK English, so that's what we follow. My bad for not checking; thanks for fixing it! Red Slash22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hike395, I am indeed familiar with RM's! This whole situation is funny to me, and entirely my fault for such a ridiculous edit summary of the move. Sorry. But I'm not only familiar with WP:RM, I participated in one recently... that moved both the articles you mentioned to their non-Latin titles. Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move So, maybe "vandalism" is strong, but lol, I don't think I need to do another RM to recreate the RM that just closed a couple months ago in favor of those titles! Red Slash02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear -- I wouldn't have undone your move if you had used an edit summary that mentioned the RM from two months ago. Note that that RM didn't resolve scientific vs. common names -- it simply resolved the capitalization of the common name. I'll continue the discussion on Talk:Whitebark pine. —hike395 (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have been known to employ an unprofessional edit summary from time to time. I regret the complications that this one caused--I should've at least mentioned it was in violation of a RM. Sorry again! Red Slash22:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proverbs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please just leave Apteva's talk page alone, there has already been far too much drama there. There is no real reason for your edits, it is not all that uncommon for a blocked users's talk page to be hatted and a final message left for them in this manner. If they are ever unblocked they can do whatever they want with it, but for now it should just be left alone. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there isn't really a reason. I don't see why you feel the need or feel you have the authority to box up that talk page, but I will respect your request. Red Slash02:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The revocation of the talk page and hatting of the content was an administrative action. Normally nobody, admin or no, should undo an administrative action without consulting the admin who did it first. The point was and is to send a message to a user who was persistently disruptive that their disruption is over and their talk page is closed for business until such time as they successfully appeal the block, which they will need to do via WP:BASC at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you on that. I just think it makes things less convenient for those who want to know why a user stopped editing - I'm a regular on WP:RM and wondered what Apteva was up to, and then found out to my dismay that they'd been blocked (IDK if it was appropriate or not, but I have no reason to doubt that it was fair). It's not a big deal, honestly. And I didn't know that boxing up an unprotected usertalkpage was considered an administrative action, else I would not have done so. Sorry if that was out of line! Red Slash02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jágr
Hi, sorry but I noticed you moved a Czech surname to redirect to one person with that surname, and displaced the list to Jágr (disambiguation). It may seem like a good idea, but we never do that with any surname. So would you mind please put in a technical request to revert the move. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are not familiar with WP:BRD. When someone asks you to revert a move the response is not to place a RM from the wrong end signed with "Lol".
What I should have done however is simply place a tech restore myself and notify you. In the interim I have moved the article to (surname). You can still follow WP:BRD, place a tech restore, and then start a clean RM without all the bad vibes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite familiar. But I wasn't going to force an admin to go through the ordeal of a TM/history merge/etc. when you, me, and everybody in the world knew that redirecting Jágr to Jaromír's page would pass an RM. 100 to 1 pageviews. Seriously. 100 to 1. I apologize for bad vibes but I'm not sure how they could've been avoided. I'd almost say you're violating WP:POINT but I have no idea what that point would even be. (And I know you usually/always edit in very good faith. I'm honestly baffled. What gives?) Red Slash04:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is how many sportsman surnames on en.wp will be affected by this? How many ice-hockey players, footballers, basketball players, baseball players should replace their surname and move the surname to (surname)? Are we talking 100s? 1000s? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair concern. I nevertheless think we'll rarely see a situation like this where there is very little or no compelling interest in the base form or anyone else carrying that name, while there is also a very prominent primary topic candidate that bears that surname. I can't see this happening too many times in the future. Red Slash02:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Red Slash. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Course (meal), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Course (meal), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cordon bleu and Garnish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, David and Jonathan. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Views on David and Jonathan. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Views on David and Jonathan – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - MrX00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't move an article with a long history to a WP:POVFORK and then recreate the article that you moved while removing massive amounts of content from the original article (under its new title). For one thing, the article history should remain with the original topic. Please stop editing these articles so that an admin can reverse what you have done. Then, if you think a POV fork is justified, discuss it first and gain consensus. Thank you. - MrX01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that seems to me to be a perfectly rational thing to do when an article claims to be about a broad topic and spends almost its entire content discussing merely a minority view. Nobody's yet disputed that the majority of reliable sources refer to it as a friendship. An article on possible homosexuality is likely to survive an AfD discussion, if it were to come to that, but it's certainly not the majority viewpoint of reliable sources about the two men. Per WP:UNDUE, we follow the majority view, while mentioning the minority view if it's notable (and it surely is in this case; you'll notice I didn't delete all references from the main article). Red Slash01:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that those are your views, but you have not gained consensus for such a bold move. Even if you had, the mechanics of creating a content fork do not involve moving the original article to the content fork title, and then creating a new article with some, but not all, of the original content which you copied without proper attribution as required by the Creative Commons license. In other words, the article David and Jonathan has a history which suggests that you created the entire article yourself, today. You can't do that. - MrX01:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not what happened here. You moved the original article to a different name then you co-opted the original title for what I guess will be your version of biblical history. You can't do it the way you did it and you shouldn't do it without discussion and consensus. My urgent concern is with the mechanics of the spinoff/POV fork, not the substance. - MrX01:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article on David and Jonathan will simply follow the sources, nothing more. They wanted an article about the supposition of homosexuality, so now they get it. The main article will be at David and Jonathan and cover all viewpoints in accordance with their preponderance in reliable sources. If your concern is over the mechanics, perhaps a history split would be best? Red Slash01:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the original article with its history needs to be restored. It's really that simple.
"They wanted an article about the supposition of homosexuality...."—I don't know what this means, but it doesn't sound very collegial. - MrX01:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I regret any impoliteness in that sentence. I was attempting to restate the statements by one or two other editors on the talk page now located at Talk:Views on David and Jonathan. I absolutely did not mean any disrespect and fully apologize for any disrespect that sentence contained.Full, 100% apology. Please believe that that was not my intent in the slightest. Red Slash02:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The area includes a number of other cities and suburbs, the largest being [Independence, Missouri]]; [[Olathe, Kansas]]; [[Overland Park, Kansas]]; [[Blue Springs, Missouri]]; [[Lee's Summit,
Reddot, I've been following your edits on Kansas City Metropolitan Area and Kansas City, Missouri. First, "KC" is much more commonly used than "KCMO" to refer to Kansas City, Missouri. It generally only comes into play when one is trying to differentiate it from Kansas City, Kansas which is almost always called KCK to differentiate it from KC. I know that the Kansas editors have very strong opinions about this but the fact remains that Kansas City, Missouri is culturally, economically, and historically dominant. Secondly, though it is incorrect to refer to KCK as suburbia the fact remains that as a municipality outside of the anchor city the term suburb is appropriate, though I have tried to avoid using it as to not give a false impression. It would be undue emphasis and deceptive to elevate Kansas City, Kansas to a place more significant than other large municipalities in the Kansas CIty Metropolitan Region solely because of its name. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Grey Wanderer--are you familiar with WP:HATNOTE? You might want to look there for the reasoning behind the change to the note on top of Kansas City, Missouri. In general, we do not say See also: X (disambiguation) unless X actually redirects there. Nobody who types in KC will be taken directly to Kansas City, Missouri, so there is no need to put see also: KC (disambiguation). If you disagree with that, file a move request at Talk:KC. (I would agree with you that KCshould redirect either to the Missouri city or to the metro area's article. But that's not the way it is now.)
As to the issue of proper emphasis on KCK in the metro area article... please do feel free to edit that and fix it if you feel I put too much weight on KCK. I may well have done so. Thanks for the message. Red Slash03:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the hatnote that I edited, it was the lead. Your argument for the HATNOTE makes sense though I have not edited that field myself (at least in the last year or so though I may have been the one who put it up there originally) I would posture that KCMO is so rarely used that it is inappropriate to mention it in the hatnote at all. The KCMO redirect page receives less than two visitors a day. I have made some changes to Kansas City Metropolitan Area. Mainly simply including KCK within the framework of the large cities of the metropolitan area. The list can become exhaustive and an cutoff often used in WP:WikiProject Cities is 100,000. I also will changed a blurb in the geo section about KCK being South of the Kansas River as the majority of it, most importantly downtown is North of it and historically it existed almost exclusively north of the river. Thanks for your quick reply! Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken! I did edit the hatnote. when I saw your first edit I just assumed some rando came along and changed it in the lead. My apologies, I have no problems with that edit. Also I'm ecstatic about the Missouri and Kansas page you just created! The subject deserves some attention outside of the context of the civil war or athletic rivalries. The current escalation of the economic rivalry comes to mind. Hopefully the new page patrollers will see the vaule, if they don't know the significance of the history it may get a prod or something similar. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no worries, that clears up a lot of confusion! Thank you for saying that about Missouri and Kansas--someone did just up and PROD it, but I sourced it tonight and hopefully it'll stand the test of time. I think the topic could use a lot of fleshing out from a local expert (are you?); I was looking for it because stuff like that's really interesting to me, and was very bummed not to find it; I could only write with what I knew and was able to find after a cursory Google search. Please, Grey Wanderer, do what you can over there if you're informed about the relationship between those two states. I've got high hopes for the article someday! Red Slash03:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KC suburbs
Ok here is a question: How do we indicate which city is primary on suburban city pages? Almost universally in other metropolitan areas this is achieved by "X is a suburb of X" aka "Derby is a suburb of Whicta." I have met resistance on Kansas side cities when writing "Overland Park is a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri" and have been accused of being not neutral. Right now the fix is to say that the city "is located in the Kansas CIty Metropolitan Area." I think it would be much more informative to link Kansas City, Missouri and it would make the relationship clearer, would link to a much more developed page, and be consistent with what you see on the rest of Wikipedia. I feel the unspoken assumption is that Overland Park, for instance, is a suburb of Kansas City, Kansas; which is patently untrue. Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
I mean, do we have reliable sources calling Overland Park (for instance) a suburb? I've found that a good reliable source or two put an immediate end to many discussions. Otherwise, I wonder if it's worth the hassle--after all, saying that Vancouver, Washington is part of the Portland metropolitan area is a truly simple, easily verifiable statement; to call it a suburb would require answering what the difference is between a suburb and a twin city (take, for instance, St. Paul, Minnesota, which I have never heard being described as a suburb despite it being smaller than the major city of Minneapolis). So, to sum up, I don't know; good luck! Red Slash03:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kansas and Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Red Slash, looks like there were some errors with your close of the RM at Talk:Gender identity disorder. I fixed up the formatting, but it also looks like you stopped mid-sentence! I went ahead and forged your signature, but you might want to finish your thoughts there. --BDD (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support a move to 'Paris urban area'? That's what most references do (including the creators of the aire urbaine themselves), and I would support that as well. If you do agree, perhaps a word to that end (as you suggested) would help the admin closing the discussion. Thanks. THEPROMENADER14:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's two-to-one, we have a humungous backlog at WP:RM... I mean, what would've been the right decision? If you think the decision was wrong, please take it to WP:MRV; I will not be even the slightest bit insulted. But I felt bold enough to close it because it's one less move for some admin to close and it seemed to be the best reading of consensus. I won't undo the move, but again, if you feel the result of the move was in error, please take it to WP:MRV. Red Slash00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - since you last commented at this RM, I reported some input from the subject himself: [2]. Please feel free to consider that input in the context of the overall discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Needimages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great question, Rcsprinter123. The answer can be found at this talkpage archive, and the much shorter answer is that it helps gauge the percentage of visitors who visit the page America looking for the USA versus looking for the far larger landmass. We tried doing that in the middle of a move request and it predictably led to enormous and unnatural spikes in pageviews--I figured that doing it ahead of the next move request would be best. Red Slash22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rcsprinter123, I would propose a medium-long term arrangement. I'd like a couple of months of data--providing a circumstance where it's unlikely in the extreme that someone would be tampering with the statistics and where individual spikes on certain days would regress to the mean gradually. Do you find that appropriate? What do you think? Red Slash01:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I may not have made that clear enough. If you can improve the language, please do. I have no dog in the fight at all, I just wanted to resolve it for the people on the talk page's sakes. Red Slash02:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Potato chip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The part of the guide I paraphrased is the section concerning "ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through". I think it applies to a pair of years (indeed, one of the examples is "the 1939–45 war"); do you disagree? —rybec07:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see how 1995 - 1996 should use an endash, but I don't think 1995-96 should. To me it just looked awkward. However, I did indeed miss the phrase "the 1939–45 war" within that section--not sure how, nevertheless, I certainly did. I guess that's okay, then. It still looks weird. Red Slash03:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, sounds fine to me. There wasn't a strong enough consensus for me to say you're out of line--if you think that's the best decision, go for it. I guess we can have them both. Red Slash03:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide search evidence from Google Books that Timothy only occurs with Saint. The RM is now at (biblical figure) consistent with other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, I'm somewhat puzzled by you posting this here on my talk page. I feel that writing on the RM itself would've been a better choice. I'm copying your comment to there, and likewise will respond there. Red Slash17:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. In the future, since we tend to correspond a lot :) I would generally prefer you tagging me on that page if it has something to do with improving the page (and talking with me here if I, for example, have crossed a line in civility or something). But thank you. I definitely think you chose a better disambiguator in (biblical figure). Red Slash17:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request for amendment that you have submitted has been declined by the Committee, as it was determined that it was not necessary. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen775409:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please revert your close - you have failed to notice 2 new SPAs (I'll be putting in an SPI to see if related). And there is a compicated multi option. This requires an admin close. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind just re-proposing the move? Like I said on the close, it's basically never done (to my knowledge) to propose on page Z that X be moved to Y. Now that the article on the artist is at Kizzy your move can move forward. Red Slash03:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the close is now at the very least acceptable to you. In a week you'll probably get the result you expected with the disambiguation page as the primary topic but at least the support voters and WP:RM-watchers will have their chance to weigh in. Red Slash03:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh boy, sorry you have just made it worse. Moving something and then immediately dummying up a RM to move it straight back knowing that there's an SPI ongoing? I have moved it back to status quo, shut the entire thing down and left it on admin User talk:Anthony Appleyard's plate. I'd strongly suggest you go back and revert your last 4 edits back to the state you found it and let Anthony close the original RM as he sees fit. There shouldn't be a new one while a multi SPI is in process. There's no urgency here. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the page as it stands here? There's a closed move request and then a new one that people can !vote on. I don't know what you were getting at with your edit that I undid. It's a perfectly valid multi-move request now. Just leave it be. Red Slash01:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aeneas Mackay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{db-move|Æneas Mackay|[[Talk:Æneas_Mackay#Requested_move]] - thank you so much! :)}}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cup may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
/ref>, and a silver cup plays a key role in [[Joseph (son of Jacob)|Joseph]]'s reconciliation with [[ while in [[England]] there have been cups discovered by [[archeology|archeologists]] that date
Please revert your nonadmin closure at Decani move discussion because it violates WP:RMCI. You are not uninvolved editor in this discussion which has not ended with clear consensus to move the page in question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Red Slash is uninvolved - disagreeing with you on another page does not make an editor inherently biased. However, I'm sure any competent administrator would make the same closure, if they had the time to wade through reams of text - in which support votes are based on the weight of recent sources, and oppose votes are dominated by misuse of sources, canvassing, mendacious arguments, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my point here. Let me clarify it.
You should revert your nonadmin closure at Decani move discussion from two reasons:
You are involved per WP:INVOLVED and WP:RMCI, as explained at article's talkpage
Your closure violates WP:RMCI because:
there was no clear consensus to move the page in question
You discarded presented evidence for WP:COMMONNAME, proclaimed that it does not exist although more than 5,000 English language books use Decani compared to 72 hits for Deçan
I still stand by my decision. I was not involved and it sure seemed like consensus was clear. Please, file a move review. I would even do it myself for you. (Note that an administrator did review the close in order to delete the pre-existing redirect. Just FYI.) Red Slash20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing search for number of article with specific terms is not accurate. With respect to pubmed one actually need to manually count. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to count them manually not just type into pubmed.
Try it. Search for review articles for Cannabis from the last 5 years. Set the display to 200. Search for cannabis and you pick you 73+79+11=163, type in Marijuana you pick up 13+8+1=22.
Next search Marijuana review articles from the last 5 years. Set the display to 200. Cannabis in the title is 58+64+38=155. Marijuana in the title is 18+15+7=40. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Captain Cornwall. The main reason is WP:COMMONNAME, which says that our article titles should describe what the subject is commonly called in English. [4] I'd be open to suggestions and you're free to put in a requested move, but please make sure whatever move you propose follows our naming criteria. Thank you very much for your contributions to the article, though--it looks a lot more like an encyclopedia article after your edits!! Thank you! Red Slash21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undercarriage
Hi,
I see you created Undercarriage (disambiguation). I have been wondering whether there is enough material to turn the Undercarriage page into a proper article. The origin of the word is in the underframe and running gear of a horse-drawn carriage, thence to carts, Cayley's gliders and on to most any vehicle which ever sits on something. Contrary to assertions by some editors, word combinations such as Locomotive + undercarriage, or automobile + undercarriage, are still popular (e.g. try googling them). So I think this would adequately serve to disambiguate. What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you again, Steelpillow! I agree, there's likely enough to make it a stand-alone article and possibly even to wrest away (as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) the redirect from landing gear. Maybe chassis could be moved and form the basis of a sort of WP:DABTOPIC page at undercarriage? This is admittedly not my area of expertise, so I'd leave it to you, but I'd support you in doing whatever; I just made the disambiguation page as a kind of stop-gag measure. Seems like a good article could easily be written on the topic;. I say go for it! Red Slash17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the world are you to tell someone that she's misspelling her own name?
Who in the world are you to tell someone that she's misspelling her own name? She gave her name an interview. Why should we disregard that because of your preference for sources with limited accents. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you eight questions on an article talk page, you ignore all eight, and you come to my userpage when I have previously requested for any article-related business to stay at the article's talkpage. Not the greatest moment in your editing career, I daresay. Please, if you have any further comments, please make them there. Red Slash06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came to your User talk page because you again made personal attacks and personal comments and these are best addressed at a User talk page. Your comments, not just "Who in the world are you to tell someone that she's misspelling her own name?" (which is bizarre in any context) are generating heat not light. I request that you please do not personalize discussions. I have nothing further to say on that Talk page as I can do without the stream of personalized comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize fully for any comment I made that generated heat instead of light. You have my full, unreserved and unconditional apology. While I do wish you had provided some sort of answer to some of the questions I asked, I understand why you want to leave that discussion behind. It got heated and I'm not quite sure how (I felt you were dodging my questions, but that's no excuse if I took that and made things more heated than they should have been). I apologize for any negative role I played in the discussion and would ask your forgiveness if I have offended you. Red Slash07:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Autobahn
Hey Red Slash. Thanks for the thanks:-) I just wanted to let you in on a procedural nuance. Many admins are not that familiar with complex moves and move cleanup. We always hope that the one who actually performs the move will be – will check histories and so forth, and not do the move if they don't know how – but that doesn't always work out. For Autobahn, you had to hope whoever responded would see that German autobahns not only had a long page history but was a source of merged content and would know not to delete that and what to do. What I'm getting at is that in the future if you place a note about that in the db-g6 template, you'll be much more assured that good procedure will be followed. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - it's good to know that and I had no idea before you told me that that was an issue (though it certainly makes sense!)... I will be sure to be more careful when closing moves! Red Slash06:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citrus tree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oranges (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
