This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:No such user

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:No such user)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Croatian locations
and language
... you were recipient
no. 1480 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

... and three! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


You are vandalising Peter Norman. Stop vandalising, it's spectacularly stupid. (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping[edit]

I would not have known anything about it otherwise. The discussion caused me to comment at one or two other CFD's that I see you also commented on. (see? the category has already fostered collaboration!) God I hate this place sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ice cream headache requested move[edit]

See my reason for support and my reply to In ictu oculi. Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, No such user.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: (Belated) thanks for the invitation, but I'll think I'll pass – as I've never felt an inclination to perform NPP for my years of tenure, I don't think I ever will. No such user (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it isn't for everyone. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Surely a table of freezing points belongs in a section discussing its use as a refrigerant? Saline water doesn't seems like a good fit, as the table mostly concerns concentrations which would be classed as brine.--Project Osprey (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Project Osprey: On principle, I'm against WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. Physical properties of all concentrations of saline waters are given in, um, saline water. Brine#Refrigerating fluid article explains the physical process (sort-of, should be made clearer) but I don't think reader's understanding is enhanced with a large table of salt water's physical properties. If needed for explanation, saline water#properties can be simply linked from the relevant sentence (I can't even locate an appropriate one at the moment). No such user (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, No such user. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


As I said a month ago or so, I'm working on the articles. See User:Mr_KEBAB/VPAS. Obviously, it's far from complete. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Serbia waterpolo team[edit]

FINA considers Serbia to be inheritor of both SFRJ and SCG results. This document is evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagibgd (talkcontribs)

Results can't be inherited, you should actually read that source. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually that document list results for YUG until 2003, SCG from 2003 till 2006 and SRB after that. Similarly TCH results are still credited as TCH results.Tvx1 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


The Yugoslavia name has been carried out by both SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia actually.Tvx1 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Italian place names[edit]

A few days have passed since my last reply to you ([1]), I'd like you to read it and tell me what your thoughts about my last linguistic argumentation. (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The page about Baselga di Piné was correctly renamed. Could you please move the other one, Ruffré-Mendola, please? The page in it.wikipedia has already been moved, which means that consensus was reached in the Italian wiki about this Italian name, exactly as for Piné, and other wikis moved both pages too. Even Google Maps spells it Ruffré, as it does for Piné. And let's not forget the 2 noted Italian orthography and pronunciation dictionaries, DOP and DiPI, which agree with the acute accent spelling. There's no reason not to move this page, overall after moving Piné, as far as I can see... (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


I thought you might want to know that I requested revision deletion of the copyright violations you removed. Vermont | reply here 00:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

An unusual request[edit]

Hi. I have a query related to languages. I could have posted it at WP:RDL, where you've answered my queries a few times so far, but for personal reasons I prefer this one not to be public. Given your areas of expertise, I think you'll maybe have some idea about how to help me, or know who might have.

Could you please give me the chance to contact you via email? If you specify an email in your settings and mail me, I'll mail you back. It needn't be your "regular" email; you could just make one for this purpose only, and then remove it from your settings.

I realize this is a bizarre request. Feel free to decline it, ignore it, and even delete it from your talk page. Still, I would be grateful if you responded. --Theurgist (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Theurgist. You got mail. No such user (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Renaming discussion[edit]

I'd love to get your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Green Park tube station bombing. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing decision[edit]

No such user, I'm sorry but am not convinced in regard to your close at Talk:Die, Monster, Die#Requested move 17 May 2018. Whether or not my oppose !vote to rename to the native-language title is convincing, I think the oppose rationales carried more weight than you seem to think. It's possible that the outcome should have been "no consensus" and the page should not have been renamed to "Murder Me, Monster". So I ask at this time that you reconsider your close.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Painius: I don't see that anyone agreed with your position. The film has an official translation ("Murder Me, Monster"), as issued by its very producers and distributors, it is commonly referred in English-language media under that title, and, for God's sake, it's the title that can be seen at the theatrical poster in the infobox. The nominator provided quite a number of English RS using the proposed title. WP:NCFILM provisions for native titles apply only to films that have never seen a significant English coverage, and this one has. Please see WP:NCFILM#Examples–none of the exceptions (Bande à part (film), Ran (film)) applies here. Finally, I'll point out that it's all based on the WP:UE policy: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name... but we do have one here. No such user (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said, whether or not my arg was convincing, I think the opposing args were, as a whole, weighty enough to challenge what the supporting args set forth. This should have led to a "no consensus" outcome, and the page should not have been moved. In regard to your arg above, while it seems convincing, it is by no means completely accurate. There has been no evidence produced that this film has ever been released in English-speaking countries under any English title. At the very least, the title from which you moved the page, "Die, Monster, Die", is a direct translation, and the title to which you moved the page, "Murder Me, Monster", is a "variant English translation" and is covered clearly by the film guideline. At the very least, there should have been a "no consensus" outcome, and the page should retain its direct English translation. Would you be okay with a new RM to request that the page be retitled to its native-language title?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Opposes from Lugnuts and ONR were based on apparent misconception that both titles (Die, Monster, Die and Murder Me, Monster) were in equal circulation in English, but they were refuted by the point that the former was based on an early Cannes festival webpage that has been superseded since. The list of some 15 sources in the nomination using the proposed title has not been refuted by anyone.
As for opening a fresh RM, you're certainly entitled to it. But I don't think that your apparent interpretation of WP:NCFILM that the film must have an English theatrical release (it's barely a month since it was released in home market, after all) to have a English translated title holds closer scrutiny; the criterion is more commonly recognized by English readers, and the film has seen a fair deal of English-language coverage so far, so that we can say that one is established. No such user (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on the film guideline, which expressly states that if the film has not been released in English-speaking countries, then the native-language title is preferred over any and all variant translations. Thank you for allowing a new RM, and would you be kind enough to add that to your closing statement?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Just had a thought based upon what you said about "(it's barely a month since it was released in home market, after all)". Your closing sentence was "It has been reasonably demonstrated that 'Murder Me, Monster' eventually emerged as the most common one." So I wonder how after only a month, any English variant translation could possibly emerge as more common than the film's Spanish language release title, Muere, Monstruo, Muere? As you say, it's only been barely a month, after all.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Painius, please see the evidence for yourself in the RM nomination. The film was shown in the Cannes festival, which makes it notable in the first place. We have 12 (fifteen) English-language references, produced by Film Fan, mostly reviews and the festival coverage, and several producer websites, all using the Monster title in English. That makes it a pretty open and shut case. I'm really at loss how you fail to even acknowledge that evidence, let alone address it. If you want, open that RM, or start a MR, you don't need my blessing, but I don't think we should discuss this further here. No such user (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me, because I certainly mean no harm. Mainly, I just don't understand why the guideline seems unclear to editors. No amount of coverage in English reliable sources under variant English titles is as important as the Spanish title under which it was released – no amount. That's what the guideline "guides" us to do. And that guideline represents the consensus of our community. While I still disagree that there was consensus to move, I do not plan an MRV at this time. I think I'll wait awhile on the RM, as well. This will be my last response to you on this matter. Again, I never meant to close you off to further discussion, very sorry for that!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
PS. Just FYI, Film Fan has opened a discussion on the guideline's talk page. PS added by  Paine  20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Walls of Basel[edit]

Merging the articles on the various gates into Walls of Basel has broken several InterWiki links, including but not limited to wikidata:Q669522, wikidata:Q392077, wikidata:Q667144 and wikidata:Q381836, making those articles in non-English Wikis effectively inaccessible from English Wiki. Those and other merges have also removed valid entries in categories like Category:Gates in Switzerland, Category:Buildings and structures in Basel, Category:History of Basel and Category:Cultural property of national significance in Basel-Stadt. You might wish to reconsider your recent actions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I think that our duty first and foremost is to provide information to English Wikipedia readers in a succinct and most accessible manner. But having one sentence articles such as those inviting the reader to visit them to find more information is much more reader-unfriendly than depriving them of interwiki links. While nice to have, having interwiki links is pretty low on the list of issues to consider, and it is AFAICT nowhere specified in our guidelines that we have duty to maintain the article structure as in other wikis (otherwise, nothing would ever get done); we aren't a database of cross-wiki mapping – wikidata is. Readers who speak German or Allemanisch and wish a better article than ours still can go to de:Basler Stadtmauer and deep-dive from there.
As for having entries of those gates in appropriate categories, that is easily fixable, but I'd rather move those to German-language redirects, which seem to be their common names. No such user (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You have raised several points.
  1. If one-line stubby unsourced articles are turned into redirects, those articles will never get written in English Wiki, no matter what exists in non-English Wikis. If there is a guideline, I don't know of it. Is there somewhere where we two can open a discussion and argue our opposing corners towards a WP:CONSENSUS? This is a very important Wiki issue indeed.
  2. In any event, your argument fails as regards Aeschenschwibbogen. That article was supported by four independent WP:RS sources, and was larger and better-referenced than either the Alemannisch or the German article. (Alemannisch isn't exactly difficult to understand, even when spoken.)
  3. I wholeheartedly agree that amateur translations of non-English placenames should be stamped upon, heavily and quickly. It looks as if this nonsense Talk:Aeschentor#Requested move 17 June 2018 was created by a Wiki editor and has now escaped into the wild. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, I was away for the weekend.
  1. I'm afraid I don't know about a more appropriate place for discussion of broader approach. For this case, as you know, there was a mention of a merger at Aeschentor RM, and Andrewa and I later had a brief merge discussion at Talk:Walls of Basel, and after a month without opposition I decided to go for it. My general impression is that over the years requirements for a minimal article have gradually raised, as evidenced by stringent criteria at WP:AFC and Draft promotion, but I don't think there are any written rules. WP:STUB and WP:SUBSTUB essay only contain very broad guidance.
    However, to counter your point to an extent, I will notice that all of those articles (Gate of Saint John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gate of Steinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) etc.) were created in 2006 by the same author in essentially the same sorry state as I found them before merging. I think that mere existence of a substub actually discourages proper article creation, much more so than a red link would. A potential author might think "oh, we do have an article about this, well, it's crap, but it's been vetted by someone", while a redlink might inspire someone to fill in an apparent void and claim a "creator trophy". Not having a full article on a landmark as prominent as Spalentor on en: is a shame, but I think it has to do with having a bad article there for so long time.
  2. Kudos to you for writing Aeschenschwibbogen, but it wasn't much larger than als: and de: counterparts. However, it was IMO a minimal reasonable article size, and if all the gate articles were written in a similar volume, I doubt anyone would think of merging them. However, I think my merge essentially carried over all the information (I only erased a sentence about someone being executed there sometime). I wouldn't mind you restoring it, as it basically fell victim to other articles' bad quality (why have more info on a small razed gate than on an existing and magnificent one)?
In sum, I think we should focus on providing quality information about the topics of interest rather than on the sheer number of articles espousing this information. Call me a m:Mergist if you like. No such user (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) ping No such user (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Spanish flu": inaccurate and offensive[edit]

Hi "no such user",

In the talk page of the 1918 flu pandemic, I have listed several reasons for opposing the requested move of the article to "Spanish flu". Happy to copy them here if necessary? I believe the opinions voiced were rather poorly argued. I don't dispute that there was a consensus, just that the debate leading to that consensus ignored most relevant aspects of the move.

I understand you are the closer of that vote and I need to raise this with you first? I'm slowly learning how this process works, so apologies if I didn't start this through the right channels.

Thank you for your time.


MiG-25 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MiG-25. As you guessed, a closer's job is generally to assess consensus and weigh arguments based on applicable policies, not to impose a "supervote". In the debate, support for "[1918] Spanish [F/f]lu" was near-unanonimous, with only Amory dissenting, and supporters put forward evidence that "Spanish flu" is the common name indeed.
I'll reply further on Talk:Spanish flu for greater transparency. No such user (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi No Such User,
I don't know if you followed the discussion involving Rjensen and myself after your response on this topic. To sum up, firstly, the PubMed data used in the vote was incorrect: 1918 influenza is more common. Secondly, while "Spanish flu" is more common in both general and Google Book searches, the alternatives are not uncommon (General: ~700,000 for Spanish flu to ~400,000 for the addition of "1918 flu" and "1918 influenza"; similar ratio for Books). Finally, I believe I have provided plenty of evidence that "Spanish flu" is considered, at the very least, quite unfortunate in Spanish and medical and divulgation sources. These are at pains to emphasize that it is a misnomer or actively avoid or encourage avoiding such uses (CDC, WHO and The Conversation).
I fully understand and respect that you were simply interpreting what seemed to be a fairly clear result in favour of "Spanish flu". However, I would say evidence in support for change based on WP:COMMONNAME seems rather weak in light of the above. Examples often used as part of WP:COMMONNAME do not seem to compare easily to this case, which may also explain the problems in applying it.
I don't know if you would be the best person to re-open a vote/move vote review or whether I should do it. In any case, I would appreciate any guidance.
In closing and regardless of this debate, I would like to thank you very much for your time and express my true appreciation for your efforts in making this great project work. MiG-25 (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@MiG-25: apologies for delayed response – vacation season. Thank you for your kind message.
At this point, I think the best way forward is that you start a new RM, and bring forward the new evidence. WP:Move Review usually focuses whether the RM procedure was correct, and would not overturn it solely based on new evidence. Thanks. No such user (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi No such user. I am unhappy with your close of the move discussion there. Can you please revisit it? Can you also please refrain from closing any more move discussions for the meantime? --John (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you ignored my request. You are now on my radar as somebody who has incompetently closed move discussions. If I saw you do it again, I would raise your behaviour at a central discussion and it is likely you would receive a sanction. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Feel free, John. Can't say I'm impressed with your behavior though, as you chose intimidation and vague threats over policy- and argument-based discussion, but I'll leave any further comment for that "central discussion". No such user (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not a vague threat, it's a promise that since you clearly do not understand how to evaluate consensus you should refrain from making any more poor judgements like the one we are talking about. --John (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The close was good, and in fact the only available one. There was clear consensus, supported by evidence, that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so moving it to some title was necessary. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, this is the right thing to do. NSU even stated that a new RM could be held to hash out the best form of disambiguation. There's nothing at all out of process here. John, if you feel differently, you can take it to move review, though it's very unlikely it would succeed, as the close was totally reasonable. I'd strongly advise against threatening people with "a sanction" for perfectly reasonable, kosher actions; that tends to WP:BOOMERANG.--Cúchullain t/c 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Kalyanasundaranar listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kalyanasundaranar. Since you had some involvement with the Kalyanasundaranar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for DC Vertigo[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of DC Vertigo. 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. (as discussed on Talk:DC Vertigo#Consensus?) –Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please fix links[edit]

Now you have moved Kings Park, Western Australia which is both a place in it's own right and its actual name as well as subject to WA Government state legislation - to Kings Park, Perth can you fix all the associated pages, categories as well. There was no need to move is because of Glouster Park disambiguation which isnt a park but rather the name of a trotting venue. Gnangarra 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: – I made a WP:BOLD move and I'll be happy to revert it if anyone thinks it was inappropriate. It just seemed strange to me to disambiguate a city's central park by the name of the province – parks, streets, neighborhoods and like are typically dabbed by city name.
However, one way or another, I don't see there are any links to fix - all pages that used to link there still Special:Whatlinkshere/Kings Park, Perth still do; only the Category:Kings Park, Western Australia is currently inconsistent with its main article.
I feel as if I'm missing something: do you object to my chosen title or do you think I broke something? No such user (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
since you have no problem I'll revert to the actual name. Gnangarra 12:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: You may need my assistance for that, the redirect is now "salted". But still: I'd like to know why do you prefer the old name? Like I said, it's very odd to have a city park (or a city quarter, whatever) disambiguated by province name. No such user (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Being western Australia it does not necessarily fit to other country perspectives, unusual maybe elsewhere, accepted in western australia. Nothing odd from the perspective here. JarrahTree 14:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes its in the centre of Perth but it was separated from Perth when create it exists under its own state legislation as does the responsible organisation KPBGB, to protect the area from development it's effectively a National Park and excluded from all Perth Metropolitan area planning schemes. Gnangarra 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
But its legal status is the least concern how we name the articles. It is located in the heart of the city, and all the sources and guides treat it as part of Perth, not as a location somewhere within vast Western Australia. It's akin to renaming Hyde Park, London to Hyde Park, England. But OK, being past the WP:BRD cycle I preserve the right to start a requested move on the talk page, to seek broader consensus... if I get arsed to. No such user (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Legal name = Official name, Primary topic/ DAB both use official name in preference when common name is in conflict with other topics. Gnangarra 15:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: Hyde Park, London is not at Hyde Park, England per WP:UKPLACE which specifies that 1, disambiguation is usually to county not country, 2 Hyde Park is unquestionably part of the urban settlement of London and 3, places within Greater London user Placename, London. Hagley Park, Worcestershire for example is at Hagley Park, Worcestershire, not Hagley Park, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: dont why you are pinging me (I didnt raise the issue) or commenting here about Hyde Park in London as this discussion is about Western Australia though we too have Hyde Park, Perth. The issue was moving Kings Park , Western Australia to Kings Park, Perth which is a uniquely Western Australian issue as Kings Park while in the center of Perth isnt part of the Perth Metropolitan area but rather a place in its own right. Gnangarra 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My collages[edit]

Ok, engleski mi je loš priznajem, ali ne znam u čemu je tvoj problem!? Kakve veze ima veličina slike? Slike su postavljene u odgovarajućoj veličini ali sam je ja menjao prilikom postavljanja slika u članke! Veličina je svuda bila 360px, ali sam negde stavio 500px što možda jeste preterano....! Ok nek ti bude, tebi jedinom smeta! Na Srpskoj vikipediji, ne vidim da nekom smeta! Makar biraj i postavljaj lepše slike! I ne nazivaj moje kolaže dečijim, please! Neću više ni postavljati slike na English wiki! Zeks127 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

-Ako je tako onda ću posebno i specijalno za English Wikipedia napraviti kolaže sa maks. 6 slika, i dobro probrati i staviti najupečatljivije slike, iz svih značajnijih gradova u ovoj zemlji.... Ali to tek u narednih mesec dana! Ostavi barem Beograd, Novi Sad i Niš.... Zeks127 (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, No such user. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotterdam (song) move review[edit]

Re: the move discussed here.

Could you clarify your decision on closing/moving this page? The song's title (as listed on the album sleeve, single release, and all subsequent digital releases) is "Rotterdam (Or Anywhere)". "Rotterdam" is simply not the name of the song. I don't see how WP:COMMONNAME applies here - no other song names are truncated like this (e.g. Street Spirit (Fade Out); It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)). Am planning on opening a move review on this. Klock101 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Klock101 I don't even recall that RM. However, it was a run-of-the-mill under-attended one, relisted a few times, where two experienced users suggested an alternative title, so the outcome was rather simple to determine, if not terribly decisive; it's not a closer's duty to go out of their way to check the evidence. Indeed, on a quick check, both refs in the article refer to the song as simply "Rotterdam" (unlike e.g. "Street Spirit (Fade Out)". I don't really care either way, but I'd suggest starting a new RM with fresh evidence, than going though MR. No such user (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

DAB - consequently...[edit]

Based on your comment to the edit from May 2018, why don't you unlink all DAB pages from there? --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Re [2][edit]

See WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 04:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


I just want to thank you for your support at the AN/I discussion. I took the liberty of copying your comments onto my talk page for the benefit of anybody reading about the block in the future. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Scolaire. I'm sad to see cowboy admin actions still running unfettered in year 2019. No such user (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello, No such user. What do you mean "just isn't idiomatic" with regards to what was previously added to Honey? The word "millennia" is the plural form of "millennium" which is a term for a thousand years. Because the phrase "thousands of years" perfectly fits the definition of "millennia," I think the word can be used. (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Just because a word can be used does not mean that it should be used. Yes, "millennium" means the same as "thousand [of] years", but I don't think that it's as commonly used in collocation with "for". For me at least, "for millennia" does not sound as natural as "for thousands of years", i.e. it is not wikt:idiomatic. Now, I grant that the former has been used on Wikipedia 1,252 times, but a lot of it is in paleontology contexts, and the latter has been used 2,751 times. Anyway, this is a too trifle issue to have a dispute about. No such user (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ban discussion[edit]

You asked where the original ban discussion was. The only discussion is the first thing I linked in the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dicklyon requests clarification or lifting of restrictions. Here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Standard offer unblock request from Dicklyon. There was no ban proposed or discussed except a few comments there.

Please also see my comments at User talk:GoldenRing#Examples, background?. I'm happy to send details if you want to defend me. I won't wade in myself, but I hate to see hearsay and misinformation going un-countered. Thanks very much for what you've done already. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I had seen and read the Archive 277 discussion, but some editors there obliquely referred to an earlier page move ban... Ah, I see, Ivanvector referenced it explicitly: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Dicklyon_and_mass_moves. While I intend to read it, I see that it resulted in a 6-months page move ban which expired in late 2015. No such user (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it expired before my unblock and was not renewed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)