User talk:Red Slash
- 1 Common misconceptions
- 2 Talk:Steam Machine#Requested move
- 3 Chris Alexander (editor)
- 4 The RM closure
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for January 29
- 6 Humour
- 7 The drums and The Drums
- 8 DYK for Cup
- 9 Ugh!
- 10 Talk:Génesis (album)
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for February 5
- 12 You might like...
- 13 IPA for Spanish
- 14 I kindly request your support
- 15 ll and [ʃ]
- 16 Move discussion at Talk:Eitaro Ozawa
- 17 RM closure by non-admin
- 18 Disambiguation link notification for February 17
- 19 Talk:Manchester capitalism#Requested move
- 20 Hillary move and lead
- 21 Cyprus hatnote
- 22 Bangs / Fringe
While I'm sure that many of your removals are entirely valid, your edits changed too much in one go. You also snuck in some WP:NOTBROKEN revisions (such as switching from British to American spelling of Litre). Please discuss this on the talk page so we can better understand your reasoning. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Ego White Tray, I may well have removed too many (though I feel pretty good about all the ones I took out). (You are quick, by the way! I'm impressed!) The one thing I'll say is that the article must as a whole be in one single unchanging variety of English (see WP:ARTCON) and the bulk of the article is in American English. Thanks for all your efforts to improve the page. I'll be in touch on the talk page. Red Slash 04:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm contacting you to ensure consensus is clear. You've agreed it should be moved, but I've later pitched the concern of a definition issue. I'm instead proposing Steam Machine be renamed and moved to Steam Machine (hardware platform). I'd like your thoughts if this is okay on the bottom of that talk page. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask a favor? Can you keep an eye out on the article Chris Alexander (editor)? Long story short, there's an IP editor that keeps coming in and editing the article in order to make Alexander appear less notable and it's pretty obviously done because they really, really avidly dislike the man. Their edits haven't been helpful and come across more as vandalism because they'll blank sections for little to no reason other than "I don't like that this is here". The semi-protection will be up on February 7, and the comments of the IP on the talk page (and their habit of frequently editing Alexander and Alexander related articles) show that they'll likely try to return and vandalize the page again. If it continues then I'm going to lobby for a permanent semi-protection, but there's always the possibility that the IP might try to open an account to get around any semi-protections. In any case, that's why I want to have more than a few eyes watching the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of relevance is this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Alexander. Basically, Alexander himself came on and ranted about how someone was out to get him, yadda yadda. I blew it off at the time because I thought he was being paranoid but I'm kind of wondering if there isn't something to this. If vandalism continues then I might try to see if the IP has any sleeper accounts on here that they're working on in order to try to get around any potential further blocks/bans/protections. I hate to sound all paranoid, but this IP really does seem to have a hate-on against Alexander. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The RM closure
Since we seem to be in limbo waiting for anyone to close the Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana move review, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to withdraw your nomination to the move review, close it yourself as overturned and relisted, then undo your close and repost your analysis as a !vote. This seemed like such a simple matter of basic facts and clear guidelines when I first stuck my foot in this tar-baby. I'd like my life back, which obviously will never happen unless and until this does eventually close. Msnicki (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, it takes a full month for a MRV to close. At this point (I've tried not to examine it too closely) with this many people having contributed, I can't wade in and retract it. Red Slash 02:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. I had no idea how long one of those ran. I'm used to AfDs, which are short. I did appreciate your contribution to the debate and I thought your analysis was quite concisely and logically laid out. I hadn't seen Google's n-gram facility before, so I learned something. Really quite impressive work. It didn't seem to be in good taste for me to say that at the time but now you know. On reflection, a month won't matter. I have my life back already. The current debate is down to 4 of us and the positions and the evidence are stable. From here, if I don't respond, nothing is going to change without some new entrants. Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decoration (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, and thanks for your comments at Talk:Siren (noisemaker).
You might like to have a look at the second and third userboxes on my user page... noting with respect to the first of these that the flag for professional mathematician is x=y.
The drums and The Drums
Hi, I just wondered what your rationale is for this edit. I can argue it both ways, the name is more descriptive with the disambiguator but it's not really consistent to use the redirect, it suggests we should instead rename the article. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Umm, I boldly moved the band's page, then looked closer, figured out it was a mistake, and had it TM'd back. I forgot to clean up after myself on that page and have now rolled it back. Thanks for noticing! Red Slash 04:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Cup
|On 3 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cup, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cup. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
- Cup, it's almost like that oldest of DYKs, "Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"? Well, OK, you probably did." Chris857 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so happy! DYK has really been a great learning experience and I'm glad to have contributed! Red Slash 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Red. Can you tell us why you changed the date format at Cup? I've rarely seen the mdy format you've chosen without a comma after the day of the month. (No hostile intent here, just asking.) Thanks. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Good job on the article. I hadn't known that you were the creator. As creator, I think you have the privilege of formatting the dates the way you want to. Again, nice work! --126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't scroll down from the tech move and see you open this RM, sorry. Thanks for the idea, but you might as well close it now, as redundant. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd actually agree with your (?) decision to redirect it back over to Genesis (disambiguation). I proposed it because Unreal7 had proposed a move of Génesis to Génesis and I figured that he had meant to move the album. I'm a bit confused about everything but I think the end result is fine. Thanks for your note. Red Slash 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gil González de Ávila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile (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 might like...
... to look at User talk:188.8.131.52 (there's been only one edit there as I write so I can't give a diff) and the edit that's being discussed... as you seem to appreciate dry understatement.
IPA for Spanish
Regarding Help:IPA for Spanish, I just wanted to point out that "this" begins with the phoneme /ð/, not /θ/. Both phonemes are spelled ‹th› in English, which can make it hard to keep them apart. Generally, function words have the voiced /ð/, while other words have the voiceless /θ/ (think either vs. ether), but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule.
You are quite correct that the voiceless /θ/ would be a poor approximation for Spanish intervocalic [ð̞], particularly because Peninsular Spanish can have a phonemic /θ/. And as I noted, "this" is not a great example word, since it's well-known that native Spanish-speakers often pronounce word-initial English /ð/ as [d], like in your example dis. Perhaps that page's examples for the approximate forms of the voiced stop consonants should use similarly intervocalic examples in English. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's always complicated to try and translate their sounds into ours. Even moreso when they have so many different sounds. That's a great point, though, that you made about the "th". Well said, I had just kinda been guessing about /θ/. So, I am open to suggestions and ideas, because obviously the way I expressed it is not the best. But... man, I might know the wrong way to word it, but I don't know the right one. Red Slash 23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I kindly request your support
|I kindly request your support|
|Based on my this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=595115144&oldid=595101824 ), I kindly request your support for the proposed name change. Observe the very last two edits:
Dr. K. (19:49, 11.02.2014): Thank you Lfdder for your great points, but this is classic disruptive MO. The points included in the walls of text above, have all been made multiple times by other, now perma-blocked, users and have no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about the WP:COMMONNAME not about righting of great wrongs. It is time for the initiator of this frivolous move discussion to drop the stick.
Alexyflemming (08:57, 12.02.2014): Your "disruptive MO" phrase links to "WP:Tend" (Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.). When "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" and "1974 Cyprus war" are considered together, it is clear for one with common sense and prudence! that "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is partisan, biased or skewed, not "1974 Cyprus war"!
Also, the link you gave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=496949746 ) connects it (The info (Makarios: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece")) to official record of UN SC 1780th Meeting, 19.07.1974)! Do you say "giving official UN SC records is partisan, biased or skewed"?
I showed "1974 Cyprus war" has merits to pass WP:COMMONNAME; there are countless references as such. Besides this, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criteria that must be taken into account: There are others: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. "1974 Cyprus war" 15 characters, "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" 26 characters. The latter is %73 longer, more than that, it is biased.
ll and [ʃ]
Move discussion at Talk:Eitaro Ozawa
Hello RedSlash. Per your closure, I've moved everything that could easily be moved. One exception remains and as the move closer you should decide what to do:
- Tōkyō Kazoku (since moved to Tokyo Family. I assume we leave this alone since the macrons have gone away).
I think it's fine for non-admins to close move discussions unless a move somehow depends on looking at deleted material. In actuality I suspect you could have done most of these moves even without admin tools. I get a red warning box when the move will cause history to be deleted and the box never appeared, except for the above case and for a few others where the move was already done. It seems that the deletion is the only thing non-admins can't do.
- Thank you, EdJohnston! I wasn't sure if admins had a quicker way of performing the mass moves than others, so I didn't do any of them; I was planning to go back later if the moves remained undone, but thank you for moving them! I looked at Tokyo Family and there's a good-looking source for that being the English title of the movie. So I would agree with you that it's a fine enough title.
- By the way, the main thing we can't do as non-admins is to move X to X (letter) unless either A) X (letter) is a red link, or B) X (letter) is a redirect with precisely one edit redirecting it to X. That's it. User:SmackBot made a bunch of really annoying edits once upon a time where it made redirects to pages, then came back a couple of weeks later to add categories to it. I can't move an article even to a direct redirect if there's been even one edit adding a category (or whatever). (This means if I vandalistically move Chicken to Chickenface, and then "innocuously" edit the redirect now left behind at Chicken, I can only be reverted by an admin.) Anyway, thank you so much for Red Slash 21:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
RM closure by non-admin
Hi Red Slash
I see that you closed Talk:Eitaro_Ozawa#Move_about_36_pages.3F. I don't want to contest the conclusion you reached, but you should not have closed it. Per WP:NACD Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome ... and that was the case here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- BHG, You are quoting WP:NACD which is part of the deletion process guideline. The guideline for closing requested moves is slightly different. See Wikipedia:RMCI#Non-admin closure. It permits non-admin closures even when a G6 deletion is required. For some recent discussion of the rules see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 25#Non-admin closures of controversial RMs. In practice when I see non-admin move closures it is usually by a 'regular' and normally it wouldn't cause any concern. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Oh well, it looks like the few editors discussing there were happy to keep the rules that way for RMs. I am not so persuaded that it is a good idea to ask admins to take responsibility for implementing a consensus which has been weighed by someone who hasn't been RFA-vetted, but I accept that for now the consensus is that I am over-cautious.
- Thanks for clarifying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate both your concern, BrownHairedGirl, and your clarification, Ed. I think the reasoning is often that there are very few admins who regularly patrol WP:RM and if they want to participate in the discussion, there's rather frequently no admin left to close them. I doubt AFD has as many problems with that. Anyway, I've noticed that since AFD and RFCs are both a much bigger deal than WP:RM (certainly historically so), oftentimes people do conflate the guidelines for them. (For instance, every once in a while we get someone who proposes a move thinking that they're required to make a neutral nomination, which is not the case for us but is required for an RfC.) I wonder if the instructions could/should be clearer? Red Slash 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people named Peter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock (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.
Greetings. Since you commented earlier in the discussion at Talk:Manchester capitalism#Requested move, please weigh on the proposed alternative, Manchester Liberalism (or Manchester liberalism). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hillary move and lead
Thanks for closing the RM at Hillary Rodham Clinton, I think it was a wise action given the history there and the nature of the latest proposal. Unfortunately, I don't similarly agree with you on the reductions to the lead section of the article, for the reasons I gave in the edit summary. But I'll be happy to engage on that further on the Talk page there, where the lead and everything else in the article has been much discussed over the years. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Bangs / Fringe
- My bad - I didn't check to see how long ago the move was made originally; I should not have done this to repair a move made in 2006. I made everything clear and above-board and there was no underhandedness, but definitely, this is not the process for reverting poor move decisions made over seven years ago. Wow. My full apologies. Red Slash 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't check to see how long ago the move was made originally; I should not have done this to repair a move made in 2006.
- I mentioned the year in the listing's first reply. So you evidently didn't read the discussion before speedily closing it. That's a problem.
- I made everything clear and above-board and there was no underhandedness,
- You obviously acted in good faith and did nothing dishonest or malicious.
- but definitely, this is not the process for reverting poor move decisions made over seven years ago. Wow. My full apologies.
- Thanks very much for that. But please note that there were other problems with the closure.
- In this context, admins and non-admins alike are expected to remain impartial to the best of their abilities. You began by expressing "strong support" for the move, which you then carried out a minute later. Clearly, this was a conflict of interest.
- Because you aren't an admin, the non-admin closure criteria (to which you linked) apply. In addition to impartiality, it's expected that "consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days)". The discussion hadn't reached even half of the full listing period or achieved anything close to consensus.
- For the relisting, you declared that the original move was "apparently in violation of WP:RETAIN". Again, this was non-neutral; you expressed the opinion that the previous move was improper, thereby discouraging others from supporting its reinstatement.
You also stated that you were "not sure what justification if any there is to override WP:RETAIN, but if anyone wants to present such evidence, they are welcome to." Again, had you read the discussion that you speedily closed, you'd have seen the justification, which is based on the belief that the move wasn't a violation of WP:RETAIN and didn't entail overriding it.
As I noted, WP:RETAIN (which, incidentally, I helped to write) doesn't require us to always retain an article's original English variety. It guides us to do so in the absence of a valid reason to do otherwise. In this instance, it was asserted (by another editor and me) that "fringe", due to its secondary use in American English, is better understood by Wikipedia's readers than "bangs" is. As explained at WP:COMMONALITY (another part of WP:ENGVAR), "universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles". (And I've pointed out that I'm American and certainly not biased against my own English variety.)
- I hope that you take this constructive criticism (which I've pointedly posted here instead of in a heavily trafficked forum) in the spirit in which it's intended. Your consideration is sincerely appreciated. —David Levy 11:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Constructive criticism very well taken. The close was completely out of order. I foolishly assumed I was reverting an out of process move (which wouldn't necessarily require me to have been impartial, right?). It wasn't right. Now, I disagree with the assertion that "fringe" is acceptable American English for bangs, but that's something that I should have mentioned in a discussion (and nothing more). I erred by jumping to a conclusion that (probably) would've justified the actions I took, but was absolutely wrong. All I can say in my defense is that I tried to do everything as aboveboard as I could have. I did not hide my actions or try to make it appear any different; in case I was wrong I wanted someone to be able to see it so that they could call me out on it, as you have. I've respected you since before you even went by your current username, and my respect for you has grown, not diminished, as a result of this. You again have my apologies and my gratitude for addressing the issue here. Red Slash 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)