User talk:Kilo-Lima

ARCHIVE LIST

Rationale?

I (and presumably some of the other participants in the discussion) would appreciate it if you could add a closing rationale to your decision at Talk:Vladimír Búřil#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Regards, KiloT 18:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I don't understand how you came about the conclusion that there was "no clear cut consensus on the move" here. [1] There was indeed a consensus that "AhwazI" is not an appropriate term for the title as far Wikipedia policy on common names goes. Many of the "oppose" votes were canvassed on another article's talk page, and overall the oppose votes were in the minority by the margin of 1 to 2. The oppose arguments were also rather weak (see [2]) and did not address the main point that "AhwazI" contradicts our main Wikipedia page titles which are Ahvaz, and Iranian Arabs, so the loaded term "Ahwazi" is clearly against our policy on naming. Even Greyshark09 who is the creator of the page, and had been canvassing votes against the move, had actually conceded that "2005 Ahvaz unrest" was the more policy-appropriate term than "2005 Ahwazi unrest". [3] In light of all this, could you please reconsider your closing decision or at least realist the RM for further discussion and wider community input? Kurdo777 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin has also said: "Users are welcome to merge with Khūzestān Province." , but I think the best article to merge is Politics of Khūzestān Province. In fact ( contact ) 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed the move with this because the majority of people were saying to merge, and not to move. So if merging, the page could just be turned into a redirect. Also, contrary to your interpretation, I felt that the opposing comments had enough weight to merit a no-move. Regards, KiloT 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NTL moves

Hello, Kilo-Lima. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Černová tragedy vote

Hi, could you explain the way of thinking which led you to conclude that the result of the vote was "move"? I'm asking because only Wladthemlat was wholeheartedly supporting it (and a Slovak nationalist called Bizovne along with a few others), most of the remaining voters didn't insist on "tragedy" as maniacally as Wladthemlat did. You've mentioned the definition of the term massacre, which involves killing unresisting human beings. However the villagers DID resist the gendarmes and the priest when he wanted to consecrate the temple. And besides, there's no consensus among contemporary sources as far as the term usage's concerned. That's why I've proposed some alternative terms, but Wladthemlat didn't seem to like any of them. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well I think that different dictionaries are going to have different definitions depending on what one you use. The Free Dictionary says The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly, i.e. without mention of the persons resisting and Dictionary.com says the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals. Regardless of the definition, however, I felt that more sources referred to the act as massacre and not tragedy. By all means, please feel free to add a WP:RFC, or even just request a move back on WP:RM, on the article for a more broader input if you wish. Regards, KiloT 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my biggest problem with the "massacre" term is twofold. This specific even COULD be categorized under the umbrella term of "massacres", but I feel that the term is not the appropriate one. Furthermore my other problem is with the fact of notability itself and its political abuse: according to my research the term "massacre" isn't by far the only name of the terms and I've found at least another one with prevalence comparable to that of "massacre" ("affair"). However Slovak editors who favor the "massacre" term seem to push this mostly for more altruistic (e.g. political) reasons than the sole prevalence of the term itself. Since I believe that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and should remain to be one, I'm strongly against any hints of politics in their articles, including the ones that deal with Central (read: Eastern :P) Europe. So anyway thanks for the advice. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time and effort to move Wikipedia:Announcements to Wikipedia:Milestones. Guoguo12 (Talk) 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas decision

Although there was no agreement on exactly what to at Las Vegas, there was overwhelming consensus in favor of the proposed move Las Vegas -> Las Vegas (disambiguation). The only disagreement was whether to move Las Vegas, Nevada or Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas, but even there I think it's safe to say consensus favored the latter. It's disappointing to see this closed as no consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was incredibly long winded and at several points I felt went off on a tangent. Perhaps it was the several alternative proposals put forward. I highly recommend refiling at WP:RM. Regards, KiloT 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

I would like to complain on user User:CoolKoon who named me "Slovak nationalist called Bizovne" [4]. It was a personal attack. Thank you. Regards, --Bizovne (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]