Jump to content

User talk:Dekimasu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George Ho (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 10 December 2014 (→‎Gary Fan Kwok-wai: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check
Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments,
and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably.
Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.


Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
You put a lot of effort into the fairly thankless job of dealing with move discussions, and I think that deserves some recognition. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 23:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal

Hey there,

I was curious why you decided on "relist" rather than close given that I almost put the page up under noncontroversial moves in the first place. Ogress smash! 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few reasons not to simply move the page: the combination of the fact that the page had been moved before and the lack of new input, the way the Zhabdrung page lists both spellings but no evidence had been given about common usage in this case in English (official romanization is not usually relevant), and the fact that honorifics are actually deprecated by WP:HONORIFIC. However, in the end, I intended the relisting to be very neutral. I was simply hoping that more evidence and participation would happen in the event of a relist. (I couldn't, of course, know that you thought of listing it as uncontroversial). Dekimasuよ! 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation is acute: is it possible to amend the relisting? Zhabdrung is a title and I should know better after doing all that work on Islam-topic pages. I felt it was uncontroversial because it's an official romanisation of the title of the founder of Bhutan. Dzongkha has an official romanisation for that Tibetic languages. This is part of the reason why the spelling is "Namgyal" instead of Namgyel, actually. However, in the end I decided that in of itself might be controversial, so I listed it. So, uh, yeah, since we've got zero comments, is it possible to emend the page change to simply Ngawang Namgyal? Ogress smash! 02:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that no one has commented, if you add the new suggestion as a comment below the original suggestion, that should probably be enough even without amending the original proposal. I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia style guide for Tibet-related articles, but if it's there to back up the preferred spelling, that would also be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lanark and Hamilton East

Hey Dekimasu. Thanks for the move to the above article, appreciate it :) doktorb wordsdeeds 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mike Dalton (wrestler)

"Mike Dalton" is one of Mattias Clement's ring names; so is "Tyler Breeze". Why no consensus to either birth name or another ring name? I'm sure that "Mike Dalton" is not a commonly-used name. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no evidence of a common name (or even relative use) ever came up in the discussion; it was also never shown that the current name is uncommon. Claims like "gained more exposure" or "higher profile" that were made aren't very strong without evidence, so it's not too surprising that no consensus came out of the discussion. Clearly some were in favor of using birth name and some weren't, but no guidelines or policy were cited except for a passing reference to common name that wasn't backed up. Given that the arguments weren't strong on either side, how would you have closed it? Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars original films title polls

Hi Dekimasu, I'm not sure if you saw, but my request was to postpone the closing of the polls by ten days so that all contributors to the Star Wars pages could see them. An editor who was not aware of the polls just replied to my message after they were closed. While i do not engage in canvassing, I did however inform the editors who brought up the issues of the film titles of the polls (see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back and Talk:Return of the Jedi), because it is very clear what their viewpoint is on the issue. But because they were not aware of the polls, I do think it did not include all viewpoints.

And again if you look at the two talk pages already linked, they are dominated by multiple users bringing up the same issue. Had they been aware of the polls, the consensus would have been very different. What I propose is the polls be opened for a few more days. If not then I am proposing a poll at least one month long as a lot of editors are not active on wiki on a daily basis. I myself do not have the time to contribute more than a few times a month.

Lastly I wish to inform you that these films were never re-released as their episode titles as the articles state. These are misleading claims and have not a single supporting source. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back was released as such first in theaters in 1980 and the same for Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983.

Not a single source has been provided to support these baseless fan-made claims, which is not compliant with wiki-policies. Regards--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nadirali: If you would like to open a new move discussion, I'd still suggest that it be set up as a multimove request, with one move discussion for all three pages. There's no reason why a new discussion can't be opened, but it was clear that leaving the previous discussions open for a bit longer was not going to result in a consensus to move the pages. If you have new arguments to bring up, you are probably better off starting from scratch. Personally, I don't have any opinion about the release names of the films, and did not really consider that in my close, because policy is to prefer common usage to either original or official names when titling pages. It is clearly the case that this is an area of perennial dispute, but that is not in and of itself a reason to move the articles yet again. As for notifying the other editors, I am not sure I completely agree that the notifications did not constitute canvassing, but I do believe you were acting in good faith. Dekimasuよ! 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Landrace

Hallo Dekimasu,

you moved the goat breed Swedish Landrace to Swedish Landrace goat. That is is a very uncommons name. It is not used in reliable sources[1]. If we use it, we do establish it. May I suggest to use parenthetical disambiguation instead and move it to Swedish Landrace (goat)? --PigeonIP (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PigeonIP: I would not revert you if you moved the page, but I would not be surprised if the move were then challenged. I moved to this form because it was parallel to the existing Swedish Landrace pig. If you would like to propose via WP:RM that both pages be moved, please feel free to do so. Dekimasuよ! 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a false claim anyway; "Swedish Landrace goat" is overwhelmingly common [2]. The only places it doesn't occur are goat-specific contexts, in which adding "goat" is redundant, and a few sites that use parenthetic disambiguation, mostly WP mirrors and derivatives. All of the recent animal breed article name RMs have concluded in favor of natural not parenthetic disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horrid move

Can you please explain why you moved this article from Libyan Civil War to 2011 Libyan Civil War? This is an extremely objectionable format, and was not the one proposed. Libyan Civil War of 2011 is the correct format, mimicking Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The "year first" format is only used for WP:NDESC titles, not for proper nouns. It was agreed previously at the various move discussions on that page that "Libyan Civil War" was a proper noun. Given that this is true, the "year first" format is entirely unacceptable. I had the page unwatched, but having now caught this, I can't believe how absurd it is. The proposer was right in requesting the "of" title. Now we have a mess, that fails our title criteria and standard English language usage. As far as 2014 Libyan Civil War is concerned, that article's title should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper noun. It should be at "2014 Libyan civil war", because the name "2014 Libyan Civil War" is not a proper noun used by the media. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it this way because it reflected the consensus of the discussion. The titles 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War were actually those suggested by the editor who proposed the move, although for some reason not what it was listed under: "If a move is decided upon, I believe the proper titles would be 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War. ansh666 01:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)." Subsequent editors agreed: "Support either: 2014 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War OR Libyan Civil War (2014) and Libyan Civil War (2011). To me it doesn't really matter whether the date comes first or not, though I believe that in the future our readers will remember the location of the conflict rather than the year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)" "In lieu of closing, I will vote support, to moving the two articles, using the 'year first' format, with the generic title becoming a disambiguation page, and concur with Fitzcarmalan that related pages may need to be moved as well to avoid ambiguity. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" In contrast, no editors specifically advocated the "of" title (including, contrary to your assertion, the proposer), and no one suggested a lowercase form. You may be able to fault the discussion on grounds that were not raised over the two weeks of discussion, and you may wish to restart the discussion, but I do not think I have erred in my reading of it. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you erred in your reading of the discussion, I think you erred in accepting violations of the title policy at the discussion paricipants' behest, which is especially true given the limited participation in what is a somewhat large series of changes. Local consensus cannot override policy or guidelines. Fitzcarmalan's initial proposal, as seen at the top, was "Libyan Civil War of 2011". Regardless, that's not the important thing. The important thing is that we now have two seriously screwed up articles. This was an old RM, that didn't catch attention for some reason. I'm sure you won't want to relist it. However, something must be done. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on the proposal. I am not sure I agree that WP:CONLIMITED applies to the extent you imply in this sort of discussion held through WP:RM, since RM discussions are not intended to create any sort of precedent and are understood to generally involve a broad cross-section of editors. I am also not convinced that the current setup is less helpful than the previous one. Proposing a new set of moves from the new titles and showing consensus for them seems like a workable solution to me, although my reaction to the close was not that it was horrid to start out with. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that incorrect English usage is the most horrid thing on this Earth. That's another story for another day, though. I'll see about a new move request. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the preposition at the end of my last sentence, then. I've been unable to locate the guidance that the year first format is only used for WP:NDESC titles in WP:NCE or WP:NCNUM#Other events ("If a time indicator is used in the title of an article on an event that doesn't recur at regular intervals [or didn't recur at all] there's no 'standard format' for the representation of the time indicator"). Where is the naming convention to which you are referring? Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through WP:MOSTITLE and it doesn't seem to have a suggestion either way, and "of 201x" didn't seem to be the preferred format for wars. I actually like the "Libyan Civil War (201x)" format best, personally. ansh666 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search found 1982 Lebanon War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, 1991–92 South Ossetia War. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are well aware of the principle of "other stuff". RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that "X is in violation of Foo" is no justification for Y being in violation of Foo. I failed to find Foo. In the absence of Foo, the presence of other articles following the same name format is evidence of the lack of a de facto naming convention. At any rate, if you can show me where Foo is as I previously requested, I'll be happy to support subsequent moves that bring the pages in line with it. Dekimasuよ! 17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, it shouldn't be "Libyan Civil War of 2011" just because Egyptian Revolution of 2011 is named that way. ansh666 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the same logic, of course, because "Egyptian Revolution of 2011" complies with our title policy, whilst "2011 Libyan Civil War" does not. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you two discussing this on my talk page, but I keep thinking someone has answered my question: Where is the naming convention/policy guidance to which you are referring? Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on doing a write-up later, when I have time. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any guideline or policy applying here. RGloucester you've thrown around a lot of irrelevant policy links to support your argument that seems to boil down to "I don't like it". It's a stronger argument to say that other articles in this topic area are using the "name first" format, but that's not really an error in his closure, just something that should have been brought up at the RM. I don't think this issue is important enough to spend another RM on. It's purely cosmetic. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Charles Essie opened another RM at Talk:2014 Libyan Civil War#Requested moves 2 three days ago, and no one has left any input so far. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain and Ireland move proposal

Why are you closing an active thread in which four editors support moving the page, and two oppose the move, citing 'no consensus'? Rob984 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because Wikipedia discussion are not votes. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So no consensus after one week and boom, discussion over? The last post was three days ago. I would regard that as an active discussion. Rob984 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."
I would also appreciate if you would evaluate the strength of the arguments. Waggers opposed because they 'don't see the point of a move'. They didn't address any of the concerns raised, or give any argument as to why the current title is better. SnowFire didn't address the concerns raised either, and claimed 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' was the primary topic of 'Great Britain and Ireland', which meant that the page shouldn't be moved. I don't understand why that caused them to oppose the move. Did you even read the comments?
Rob984 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:TITLECHANGES? If you want to file a move review, file a move review. Don't carry this on here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not carrying anything on. I'm discussing the closure. "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page". Rob984 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One week is the standard length of move discussions; thus, usually three days without messages does indicate that the request is ready for closure.
One of the things that became clear over the course of discussion was the explicit lack of agreement as to the primary topic of the phrase Great Britain and Ireland. I do not see general agreement in the current discussion that "'Great Britain and Ireland' should possibly be redirected to British Isles and 'United Kingdom and Ireland' to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC," or agreement on any of the other assertions about a primary topic. At that point, the validity of the individual arguments on the "accurate" reading of the phrase become mostly moot; when there is no primary topic for a phrase, we use a disambiguation page at that location. It would exacerbate the problem to move the disambiguation page and point "Great Britain and Ireland" at one of the articles posited as a primary topic. In contrast with articles, where we have to take many factors under consideration to determine the title most in accord with policy on article titles (there was at any rate little outside sourcing here to tell us about real-world use), disambiguation pages are navigational devices, so the proper content of the page is "things that are often referred to as 'Great Britain and Ireland'. The current page fulfills that task.
I am also concerned that this request may run afoul of the one specific area of Wikipedia not open for this kind of move discussion, due to an arbcom ruling. You can see a note to this effect at the top of WP:RMCI: "discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a link to the ArbCom ruling." Since I did not read the current discussion at Talk:Great Britain and Ireland as having reached a consensus in favor of a move, and the discussion had already run for the full seven days, I did not find it necessary to determine whether the requested move falls under the arbcom remedies, but if this issue is reopened, at WP:MR or elsewhere, it may be necessary to clarify this. Dekimasuよ! 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where "Great Britain and Ireland" directs wasn't part of the proposal. Currently "Great Britain and Ireland" directs to Great Britain and Ireland. I assumed if that page was to move, then "Great Britain and Ireland" would remain directing to the article, at the new title. I didn't think consensus on that issue was necessary just yet. Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning. Thank you for clarifying. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biserica Mănăstirii Dominicane

If you are to lazy to read a discussion properly then do not move pages. The consensus was obviously to move the page to Church of the Dominican Monastery (Sighişoara) which I will be doing now. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have moved the talk page against the close, but neglected to move the article along with it.
I specifically noted my reasons for the close and that it might be an intermediate solution, but I did not misread the discussion. You were the only editor who opposed the move. One supporting editor suggested changing the lede in addition to moving the article, and I instituted that change. Another supporting editor asked for confirmation that this was the only notable "Monastery Church" in Sighișoara, and received confirmation of this. If you would like to initiate a new move request as I suggested, please do that. If you would like to request a move review, please do that. However, I believe your tone here and on the talk page of the article, where you wrote "sure as hell ain't happening, that is a terrible name," is counterproductive and not civil. Dekimasuよ! 20:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roses etc

Hallo, if you move a page like Roses, please remember to add a {{redirect}} hatnote so that readers wanting senses other than the primary topic can get to the appropriate dab page in one click. Thanks. PamD 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thank you for the fix. I do try to remember. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

for spending a whole four minutes considering this. Sammy D III (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly not, since I was the one who relisted it a week before the close. When no one else contributed to the discussion after another week, I closed the request based on the existing discussion. I'm not sure what biased "point of view" you think the close exhibits, but it would not have been appropriate to base the close on a discussion from seven years ago. Dekimasuよ! 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, of course you are right. Sammy D III (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors expressed support for the move, two raised questions--this was my reading of the discussion. You can take it to WP:MR if you want. Also, you may have an opinion one way or another on this, but even if you don't it shows that I was considering the status of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologize for my first post, it was rude. I still do not understand the consensus.
A request was made.
One suggestion was made to the requester that “because my suggestion sounds sensible“ may not be enough reason, and “What we need to decide is what is the common name associated with the airport”, which was not done.
One oppose with reasons.
One support, who would also support a different option which includes the city name.
One clear support with no reason.
I don’t care what the name is, or what is moved where. I do care that the two posters who have presented any kind of argument are overruled by two one-liners (WP:CONCISE is POV itself?) and a questionable request to start with. This is enough reason to change something in place which has been discussed in detail before? Shouldn’t you show a clear reason for changing it, instead of having to defend what currently exists? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed a Move review application, without reconsideration I will post it on 14 November 2014. Sammy D III (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind if you send this to move review. Alternatively, I'm willing to move the page back and relist the discussion for someone else to close (but not to close it as "no consensus" myself). That might take a while to get resolved, though; I did that for one move request on October 16 and the discussion is still open. Separately, I have a suggestion and a comment. I think it would be helpful if you would make it more clear that you actually oppose the move, rather than that you are asking for clarification. While the close is certainly based on a reading of the discussion and not just numbers of supports and opposes, and it was clear that you weren't supporting the move, in this case it wasn't clear to me that you actually opposed it. The second is that you have expressed concern with WP:CONCISE a few times, including in your previous comment here, but WP:CONCISE is part of the policy on article titles. I'm not sure why you are calling it NNPOV. In the absence of a policy- or guideline-based argument against the title change (here it seems that you might want to make an argument based on WP:COMMONNAME, but figures would be helpful), WP:CONCISE does seem to be one reason to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 04:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I started rude, sorry, I have tried to get on track. The post was meant to follow instructions and inform, but it does look like a threat, right? You had mentioned WP:MR, which I did. I was uncomfortable, looking back at it.
If NNPOV means not neutral POV, I don’t think you have any bias relative the renaming, only the closing.
I get it that my opposition was not clear. I thought it was a run of the mill section, it was not until it turned green that I had any clue something was happening.
I believe that WP:COINCE is entirely subjective. I myself believe that the city name is required for “sufficient information to identify the topic”. POV. Nothing was elaborated on, just a reference to a section requiring a discussion in itself. And WP:CONCISE was referred to by the poster who also suggested an alternative name with the city name.
The requester never came back to answer questions asked them. There is one approve with qualifications(?), one approve based solely on a personal opinion, with no explanation. This is no kind of discussion at all, I am very surprised that this can be considered as enough of a consensus to change a name which has been set by two major discussions.
I don’t understand why this has to be anything more than a run of the mill, and soon forgotten, section. If it has to be closed somehow, how can it possibly be considered as a consensus of enough people to change anything? Shouldn’t it be closed with a yawn?
I intend to pursue this. Sammy D III (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit unhappy with your tone at first, but that's not true anymore. I don't consider move review to be a threat, particularly since you don't seem to think I acted with ill intent. I think that either process can be a check on whether I determined the consensus of the discussion correctly, and in this case I'm unsure of what the final outcome should be. You prefer move review to relisting, then? (Move review might also end in relisting the discussion.) I still think your concerns with WP:CONCISE are unfounded. The part of WP:AT that balances WP:CONCISE is WP:PRECISE, and I think Midway International Airport is precise enough to indicate the topic. But perhaps others will disagree. Dekimasuよ! 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over here because I cannot count all those colons. Thank you for forgiving my first rudeness.

I do disagree with the name change, but that's not my point. My problem is I don't think that there was enough discussion to change anything. I don't know the rules, I think peer review looks like the hot setup. Friday is seven days, I think I can post then and then just sit back and watch. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM at Irish Republic

Hi, Dekimasu. On reflection I'm not sure that your speedy close of the requested move discussion at Talk:Irish Republic was correct. Irish Republic is a history article, concerning a revolutionary state between 1919 and 1922. The Arbcom case was concerned only with the naming of the current state known as "Ireland" or "The Republic of Ireland", or of the island of Ireland. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if this latest silly RM stayed closed, but if the initiator wants to pursue it, I'd prefer he did it on the article talk page than on WT:IECOLL, because it would be setting a precedent to bring discussions to IECOLL that it was never meant for. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scolaire. I understand your concern. I'm still under the impression that this falls under the Arbcom case, which concerned "the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles" (per remedy 1), considering that the argument being used here is that the term is also used to refer to "the Republic of Ireland" and that the original dispute that led to the request to amend mentioned at WP:RMCI was specifically the conversion of Republic of Ireland into a disambiguation page. Since the Arbcom confirmed there that discussions should be at WT:IECOLL in the case of "changing an article whose history clearly indicates that it is about the Irish State so that it is instead about the term 'Republic of Ireland' as it refers to that state," I would think that the converse would also be true. Like you, I'm under the impression that the move wouldn't gain consensus anyway, but if it's necessary to ask for clarification somewhere, please feel free to do so (I'm happy to participate in the discussion wherever that is, or reopen if necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary). Dekimasuよ! 23:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I accept your reasoning, and I can see how, if the discussion took a certain turn, it could have ramifications for the three articles covered by the ArbCom ruling. Thankfully, 24 hours have passed and the editor has not tried to re-open the discussion, so hopefully this is moot anyway. Cheers, Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bit of testing the waters continuing, but I haven't closed the new one. Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic DAB

Hi. You marked this page as not meeting the DAB style. I'm looking at it and the main issue I see is that refs shouldn't be cited on a DAB. Could you reply here, or even better post on the talk page for that article, any other issues that you see? Several of us are working on cleaning up this page and we can try to address it. Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page there, as you suggested. Dekimasuよ! 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian Rulers

Hi Dekimasu, Your recent behavior in concluding the result of the List of Ukrainian rulers article has been a blatant disrespect of wikipedia conventions. The result of the move discussion on the talk page was an overwhelming "Oppose" based on the votes and AT MOST "No Consensus". You had no right to move the page based on the results of the discussion or to close the discussion as a "Move". You are disregarding wikipedia policy with your decision and it appears that you have arbitrated this discussion based on your own personal opinion, because you believed that the page should be moved. This is a conflict of interest, as you should have voiced your concerns in the voting, rather than engaging in WP:ACTIVISM and WP:ADMINABUSE. Please undo this dubious edit. --BoguSlav 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boguslavmandzyuk, I have already explained this in more detail under the closed move request. The result of the move discussion was to move to a title proposed over the course of the discussion; it was the title suggested by the editor who opened the discussion that was opposed. I have no personal opinion about anything related to Ukraine and no conflict of interest, nor did I express any personal opinion; I only read and interpreted the existing discussion. Please remember to assume good faith. There is a process for reviewing closes you think are inappropriate. As I noted before, you are free to have this close reviewed at Wikipedia:Move review. I doubt that it will find the close to have been unwarranted, however. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dekimasu, let's take a look at the result of the vote from a logical perspective, without any biases. The proposal was to move the page, and three people voted regarding the proposal. All three individuals who voted, said that they ALL OPPOSE the move. However, one user had a conditional oppose, which the nominator compromised with him on. In that case, the result of the vote count is 2 OPPOSE as before, and 2 SUPPORTS (the nominator and the anon who met the nominator half-way). Please explain to me how a vote of 2 against 2 compelled you to close the discussion as a "MOVE". There are two options, 1) you know the rules but chose to blatantly go against them and therefore engage in WP:ADMINABUSE OR 2) you personally want the page to be moved and you used your position as an admin to do so, therefore engaging in WP:ACTIVISM AND WP:ADMINABUSE. --BoguSlav 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly read one of the responses such that I thought all three of the editors in the discussion, except for you, explicitly agreed to the title to which I moved the article, which was not the title originally proposed: "Suggest List of rulers of the region of Ukraine -- 67.70.35.44" " I can accept your proposal. 'List of rulers of the region of Ukraine'. Fakirbakir." I read Ajaxsmack's "as proposed and oppose List of rulers of the region of Ukraine" as "as proposed and propose List of rulers of the region of Ukraine," which would have indicated that all of the editors except for you agreed on the topic. Now that I have read the discussion again, I will revert, reopen, and relist. At any rate, your accusations were unwarranted. Dekimasuよ! 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I further reiterate that I have no connection to this topic and no conflict of interest. Instead of reverting closing comments, which does not really have any effect, I'd suggest that you first contact the closer directly in the future or go to Wikipedia:Move review as per procedure; your reversion of the close without comment did not immediately suggest to me that there was an actual problem with the close. Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative music

Hey, why do you think this should redirect to just one genre when there are 4 other significant ones that share the title? Is there evidence of this term being commonly associated with alternative rock? I myself typed it in looking for a general article on alternative styles. Links to everything related (rather than a single genre) are the next best thing.----MASHAUNIX 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the hatnote I suggested to the top of Alternative rock, which should solve the problem. What do you think? The primary topic of the term is still Alternative rock, as indicated by the redirect that was stable for over a year, and redirecting to the dab page broke about 800 links. Dekimasuよ! 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Alternative rock states that it is often known as "alternative music," whereas none of the other genres listed under Alternative#Genres of music make such a claim. Dekimasuよ! 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about what the page states and the links (I missed this before), and this is indeed the best solution. Thanks.----MASHAUNIX 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Midway Airport

An editor has asked for a Move review of Midway International Airport. 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. Sammy D III (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Dekimasuよ! 19:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, maybe explanations

I am posting this here to keep it away from the peer review, please do whatever you want with it. I think I have insulted you far more than I meant to. I don’t want to get you, and will of course apologize if your move is supported.

I have never felt that you have had any bias toward the airport, or any grudge against me. If anyone thinks that, they are wrong. Quality vs. quantity and defensive, that’s it.

If the form I used is insulting, I apologize. I have no idea what “WP:RMCI” is, the other one did not seem right. I have no idea where the list is, or why I want to be on it.

“Questionable closings appear…actions” is insulting, isn’t it? It was meant seriously, and not that you were not familiar with a procedure, rather as a shortcut to more peer review. It was also not intended to affect the review itself. You are correct that it was your talk page. I do seriously apologize for embarrassing you in front of your friends, I was an ass.

I’m not looking for any reply other than possibly an acknowledgement. I don’t think I have posted anything here that affects the peer review, this is personal. I am sorry if I have made this too ugly. I do still think your closing stunk, though. Sammy D III (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page for chronological list

Hello. What exactly is the meaning of this edit of yours?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_French_classical_composers_(chronological)&curid=38022135&diff=633574069&oldid=633010150 Classicalfan626 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit moves the discussion back to the top of the list at Wikipedia:Requested moves (see WP:RM#Relisting and WP:RMCI#Relisting). It is an alternative to closing a discussion as "no consensus" when there has not been enough discussion over the course of the move request to establish a consensus for the requested move, but it seems like such a consensus could be established with more discussion. It looks like refactoring, but this is the standard way of going about things so that the bot will pick up the new timestamp. Dekimasuよ! 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal closed

Hello Dekimasu. I have closed the proposed Cheryl Cole ---> Cheryl (musician) move at Talk:Cheryl Cole which had been open for a week. The problem was that the supporters were actually preferring something else -- Cheryl (singer) -- which was not proposed. So the consensus was for oppose the proposal. Moriori (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I had only relisted the move for further discussion, and don't have an opinion myself, but thanks for letting me know. If you thought that there was sufficient support to show consensus for Cheryl (singer), even though that wasn't proposed, it would of course have been all right to move the page to that title. Dekimasuよ! 22:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't assess there was consensus for Cheryl (singer) because most respondents commented on the proposal, not a Cheryl (singer) alternative. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Set It Off

Why not vote instead? Well, you relisted the discussion, but everyone picked "support" except just one. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose or support the move. I was just unwilling to close the move request on the merits of the existing arguments of the supporters, as I stated. I think there is a possibility that either side will be able to show strong arguments, but that strong arguments were not yet made. The number of supporters, by itself, isn't sufficient reason to go through with a move. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moves like Jagger copy-paste move

Sorry to burden you with another like/Like issue, but I just noticed that you're the last one that processed a technical request, and I have one for you that's basically a technical request, but is a bit more complicated. Someone did an ugly copy/paste move of Moves like Jagger to Moves Like Jagger on 18 October. This is contrary to the last RM discussion for that page, and should be reverted on that basis as well as due to being an improper method of moving the page. I tried to contact the admin that closed that prior discussion (Jenks24), but they seem to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm coming to you. The article and the Talk page are now at different places, and some edit history has accumulated since the move. Please see:

Can you please take a look?

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a while for the system to load 2,200 deleted revisions, but the page should be back up in a second. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having some technical trouble trying to get the page back up, although the merge itself should be no problem. I'll try to figure out what's wrong. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK now. Thanks. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was unable to selectively restore--it's kicking out of the system, probably timing out because of the number of revisions, but who knows. So actually, there are a few revs from the previous redirect stuck in the history. But this is better than leaving the page down, and there weren't really substantive edits at the redirect, so it's better than before. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the fact that I edited the result doesn't complicate the problem. I thought the process had completed. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to leave it as it is at this point, so don't worry about it. It might confuse someone glancing at the edit history, but we should be fine as far as copyright is concerned and there are some known bugs with undeletion. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feral pig page

The Feral pig page is largely nonsensical, as it's contents relate to a terminology used in North America. Will you be editing this page so that it properly reflects its new title? Obscurasky (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but hopefully those who created a consensus in favor of the move will be doing so. Dekimasuよ! 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreasonable that you've created a nonsensical page and aren't prepared to correct that.Obscurasky (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for butting in, and feel free to tell me if you don't want a talk page stalker here, but if you're going to want changes made as a result of a closed move discussion you'd have a better time talking to editors in the discussion itself, and not the closer, whose job is simply to assess if there is a consensus and carry out the actual task, but is often not at all involved (and in fact is encouraged not to be) with the concerned editorial decisions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for that. I was not aware of such protocol. Obscurasky (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lachancea kluyveri

I see you created the redirect at Lachancea kluyveri (which may be gone by the time you read this, overwritten by a move). Any comment on Talk:Saccharomyces kluyveri#Requested move? Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not qualified to comment, but when IPs request that kind of move, it's usually because they hit a redlink. Since they can't create the redirect, when they seem reasonable I try to make them myself. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Good practice. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan moves reverts

Thanks, interestingly one of the moves you reverted was of a town which was used as User:Gobustan name by a previous NovaSkola sock. I have put in an SPI for a Checkuser. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI requests take some time recently, but I will keep WP:DUCK in mind here. Dekimasuよ! 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raining Men (song)

Hi- if you're going to create a dab page, could you go ahead and do it (and correct any incoming links)? Right now, we we have "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)", which is a little silly. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I'm not planning to do anything further there, but encourage anyone else to do or discuss what they think is necessary. The fact that a page move was deemed necessary does seem to imply that a redirect to It's Raining Men (disambiguation) (and expanding that dab to officially include "Raining Men") might be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely won't be fixing all of the links, though. While I try to do cleanup where I can, the onus for that should be on the editors who supported the move. Dekimasuよ! 20:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if the onus is on someone else, it seems quite reasonable that the onus is on you to tell them that. As you've no intention of fixing it, I'm moving it back until someone who does appears. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving articles under AfD is not great, nor do I really see an urgent reason to overturn a consensus close of the final of three consecutive move requests that finally brought stability to the article. Links would have to be cleaned up if and when the redirect was altered, but editors make such fixes all the time. I understand the point you are trying to make, but nothing was so broken that it required reversing an administrative action without discussion. Dekimasuよ! 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can see my exasperation, though- from my end, it looks like you've done half a job and then refuse to do the rest. I admit, given that the article is at AfD, it may well have been felicitous to wait out the result, but concerning "urgency": the alternative to moving it back seems to be just waiting until someone can be bothered to finish the job, and that might literally never happen. I don't think either of us are in any way attached to the article, so I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens if it's kept at AfD. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a further note at User talk:Anthony Appleyard, but my intent is not to be combative and I can see from your message here that it's not your intent, either. I would prefer that you had not reversed the move and/or had contacted the editors who supported the final move request at Talk:Raining Men (song) rather than asking me to perform the action, however. While it appears to be unnecessary disambiguation from your end, the article only ended up there as the result of a belabored discussion. What happens to the redirects after WP:RM discussions is not really within the purview of WP:RM, and I would only have become more involved by making an executive decision whether to point the redirect to It's Raining Men or to the dab page. Perhaps a discussion at WP:RFD would have been helpful, but I'm not intending to make you do extra work either. Dekimasuよ! 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Armenian sentiment

Hey, could you please move Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan to Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan as proposed in the talk page? --Երևանցի talk 01:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It looks like the multimove request at Talk:Anti-Armenianism was malformed, so I don't think there was a move notification shown on the other talk page, but for the time being I have moved the other page as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Երևանցի talk 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Huskerdad4404

It is interesting that you use the term constructive. I'm not sure noting that he moved 8 times in his early career is constructive , especially since it isn't accurate. I would think his early career up to and including high school would be relevant and infinitely more constructive. If you remove my contribution, then I suggest you remove what is currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskerdad4404 (talk • contribs)

This edit was not constructive; it removed the introductory paragraph, photo, and infobox in the article. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move of tai chi chuan

Hi, I think that this move debate needs a bit longer before closing. Please see the talk page. Btljs (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have replied at Talk:Tai chi. Dekimasuよ! 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pre judgement

Why did you say, when closing the RM, "Also note that 2014 coalition intervention in Syria is likely to be too imprecise to garner support." The first two responses given by the first two editors to the thread were in agreement. Please retract your comment at Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have made a comment on 2014 coalition intervention in Syria had the request not been modified to show that possibility as a proposed title. I did not feel it appropriate to ignore the proposed title in those circumstances. Problems with simple use of the term "coalition" were already evident in several of the opposing comments on the proposed "2014 military intervention in Syria": that it does not make sufficiently clear which parties are within the scope of the article, performing or carrying out the "military intervention." This point was made, for example, in Legacypac's comment: "There have been multiple nations involving themselves in Syria Civil War. A less specific title immediately will be followed by insertions of Iran and Hezbollah involvement and a massive war over which countries get more coverage." I see that you have already opened a new move request while I was away, but sorry for taking so long to respond. Dekimasuよ! 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekimasu

Regarding your closure of the RM on Talk:Kick Six. The user who started the RM actually moved the page 1 minute after they started the move request. —  dainomite   08:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the action needs to be reverted in order to have further discussion, and/or would you wish to oppose the move that was made? It looks like it was moved by the editor who supported the change, not the person who opened the move request. Dekimasuよ! 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, that's what I meant, doh! >.< I don't really care what the page is called personally, but if you do feel like re-opening it I can leave a note on WT:CFB about the discussion and I'm sure that will draw some folks to come to a consensus on the matter. But, I don't really care either way. —  dainomite   09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed unlikely that anyone would object. If someone does object, we can always revisit the issue. Either way, thanks for asking about it. Dekimasuよ! 21:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

I have noticed that you responded to my requested move of Sledgehammer (song) to Sledgehammer (Peter Gabriel song). Thank you very much!! You're a big help!! Paul Badillo (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Dan Fox

Although I opposed the move I was surprised it was closed after only two comments over the week. Do you not think it should have been relisted to allow other editors to contribute? Zarcadia (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can reopen and relist it if you want, but I closed it because I thought it was unlikely that the request would succeed as presented even given more time. As you noted, there was no evidence made for the claim that he is the primary topic of the plain title, and after you presented some evidence to the contrary no one contributed further to the discussion in the next several days. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the original requester wants to contest it I wouldn't think it would be worth reopening, I agree there was no consensus to move but don't know why more editors didn't contribute. Thanks for your time. Zarcadia (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Multimove template

Requested. Thank you!--SISCON (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out! Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airport line article moved again

Hi. After going through the whole process of the Requested Move for the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line article, Salv007, the same user who moved the page originally with no discussion, just moved it again without discussion. As this was done immediately after a Requested Move process, can anything be done about this? I'd prefer that an Administrator handle this (and have any discussions with Salv007 that might be appropriate. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted for now and I left a comment on Salv007 user's talk page. Hopefully protecting the page won't be necessary. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much! (And I'll let you know if there are any further unwelcome developments on this front, but hopefully there won't be...) --IJBall (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape

It is obvious now that there was no rape. Thus it should be "2014 Alleged Badaun gang rape". I don't think there is anyone questioning the move.

Since there was no rape, there is very little interest in in the discussion regarding the earlier proposed move. But feel free to take you time.Malaiya (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "alleged" should not be capitalized. Anyway, the closer of the discussion will read the move request for consensus for a particular title, and since the page is still listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, this should happen sometime soon. It is not clear to me from the ongoing discussion that the move is uncontroversial, but I am not involved in the discussion. I was only trying to make sure that a move was not being decided upon unilaterally when there was an open discussion. Dekimasuよ! 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to go ahead and act as the closer for this discussion, since it has ended up in the WP:RMB. The page is now at 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations; please create any new redirects you think are necessary. Dekimasuよ! 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mudslide in Japan

Your change to Mudslide in Japan as a redirect, in effect deletes the article I have improved. You may be correct in saying that Mudslide in Japan should not be a topic, or it should be a subtopic in another article. However, I think that decision needs to be made by a community discussion, perhaps by a Merge discussion or an AfD, and not by the update you made. My concern is with process, not the final decision at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind being reverted where it is appropriate. A mergeto tag would be fine with me. Either way, let's fix the title: do you think it should be List of mudslides in Japan or Mudslides in Japan? Dekimasuよ! 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably also be useful to determine how mudslides are treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is an individual mudslide a notable event, like a hurricane or tornado, or will the list of examples end up looking like an indiscriminate collection? Per your process comment, I'm not trying to burden you with the duty of collecting evidence, but that information would be useful. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no coherent reason for an article Mudslides in Japan. There is no evidence (offered) that the mechanism, frequency, or any other feature of mudslides is significantly different in Japan than anywhere else. I think it should be deleted, or if there is any specific detail of specific mudslides, combined into the generic mudslide article (I suppose such exists). But I'm not sure about how to start this process... Imaginatorium (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD wouldn't be appropriate, since there has already been an objection here, and I don't think speedy deletion is right either. The correct venue would have to be WP:AFD. For the time being, I have also added a tag to merge to Natural disasters in Japan. I suppose a merge from tag would speed things up as well. Dekimasuよ! 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fan Kwok-wai

Were you supposed to move-protect or fully protect the article? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dekimasu&oldid=637432851"