User talk:Timrollpickering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User:Timrollpickering
Main user page | Talkpage | Talkpage Archive miscellaneous | Talkpage Archive 1 | Talkpage Archive 2 | Talkpage Archive 3 | Talkpage Archive 4 | Talkpage Archive 5 | Talkpage Archive 6 | Talkpage Archive 7 | Talkpage Archive 8 | Talkpage Archive 9 | Talkpage Archive 10 | Talkpage Archive 11 | Talkpage Archive 12 | Talkpage Archive 13 | Talkpage Archive 14 | Talkpage Archive 15 | Talkpage Archive 16 | Talkpage Archive 17 | Talkpage Archive 18 | To Do list | Gallery | With thanks to...
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7
  8. Archive 8
  9. Archive 9
  10. Archive 10
  11. Archive 11
  12. Archive 12
  13. Archive 13
  14. Archive 14
  15. Archive 15
  16. Archive 16
  17. Archive 17
  18. Archive 18

Welcome to my talk page.

Please note that I prefer to have substantial discussions about individual articles on their own talk pages rather than here, so that all editors of those articles can see them and contribute.

Please also note that I prefer conversations to be in one place. I will reply to comments where they are left and, if necessary, transfer comments back to the original talk page where the conversation was initiated.

To leave a new message click here.

Crimea move[edit]

It should be the other way around. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be moved back to its original location at Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the original reversion request was formatted the wrong way round. Annoyingly the site is slowing down as I try to undo the mess. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Still needs fixing. Let me explain:
HTH,
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
At the moment the priority is to restore the edit history and this is taking a long time due to a server mess. It can only be moved after that. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed now. Thanks a ton bud. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack! Huge amount of content deleted from Crimea page! Spent a lot of time on that... Will it come back? Edit: Nevermind. See it is restored now. Thank you! --Chris Alemany (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay it should all be restored to the previous title. A bot will sort out the redirects. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Bergfeld for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Bergfeld 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/Mark Bergfeld 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymmu (talkcontribs) 18:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this AfD discussion has been relisted in order for a consensus to be reached. If you have an opinion on the article, please consider joining the discussion. Andy (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TIES[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion to redirect the template. I'm no expert, but can I ask you to please take a look at the categorisation and other template syntax to see how this might be achieved? -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 East Harlem apartment buildings explosion[edit]

Just wanted to point out that you moved this article from the above title to East Harlem apartment buildings explosion, based on an RM request that said it was uncontroversial. I assume this request came from User:Epicgenius, and if it did, he was well aware that it was controversial, because I disagreed with it. After you moved it, I assume you saw the various back and forth moves initiated by Epicgenius, and you move protected it - however, an article shouldn't be renamed on the basis of being a "uncontroversial" change, and then be protected because there's a controversy about the move (move-warring by definition indicates a disagreement, and therefore controversy).

I'm well aware that any protected state of an article is bound to be considered the "wrong state" by one side or the other, and I'm not requesting that you undo your protection or that you should restore the name to the more appropriate one abovr, but, since you are an admin, I think you might want to mention to Epicgenius that requesting a move on the basis of it being "uncontroversial" when there's an active disagreement about it, that he was involved in, is deceitful and collegial, and that he should not do it again, especially since his claim put you in the awkward position of having to take contradictory actions ("uncontroversial" verses move protection). Best, BMK (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you point me to the uncontroversial request at RM? I can't seem to find it. BMK (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be rude, BMK, but you should really look before you speak. The request is here. Best, Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical requests are often made on move disputes because the software means a repeated move is hard to revert. In such disputes the article should be moved back to the status quop ante and then any change from that discussed, hence the temporary move protect. There may be an issue with how the autosummary is generated by the template. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

. Clearly that was the case here, so Epicgenius' request for a "non-controversial" so-called (but not actually) "tecnical" move was deceptive.
TRP - This was clearly not a valid technical request, and you really should not have changed the name, which was perfectly reasonable and acceptable under MOS just as it was. If you objected to what you perceived as move warring when you went to look at it, then the correct admin action was to freeze it at the status quo name and to tell both involved editors to settle their dispute on the talk page. Changing the name and then freezing it was not an option in responding to a non-tecnical and disputed --therefore inherently "controversial" -- request. I'm afraid you're giving Epigenius the impression that venue shopping and mispresentation are legitimate ways to get what he wants, as opposed to collegial discussion to reach a consensus. BMK (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Epicgenius, if there's any guideline on Wikipedia that you should be reading and applying to every edit you do, it's not the myriad MOS guidelines (which, by the way, are not policy, and therefore mot mandatory) it's WP:COMMONSENSE. It would do you, and this project, a lot of good if you were to take it under advisement. BMK (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
So then why don't you discuss this naming dispute on the article talk page rather than TRP's talk page? (BMK, you talked yourself out of this discussion on a similar topic, so would you like to continue discussing the issue there or start a new topic on Talk:East Harlem apartment buildings explosion?)
By the way, while the MOS may not be a policy, it is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles, and it is the default policy regarding Wikipedia articles. It states, at the very top:

Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Since you are not the first major contributor, BMK, you will need to discuss this issue at one of the article's talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics[edit]

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)