User talk:Eventhorizon51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page mover right[edit]

Since you have closed many RM discussions such as Talk:Xârâcùù#Requested move 22 June 2016 and Talk:National security of Colombia#Requested move 14 June 2016, you should consider adding a request for the page mover right at WP:PERM/PM. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@24.205.8.104: I honestly don't think I have gained enough experience yet to be granted the page mover right. I have been helping out with some of the requests at WP:RM but I haven't been there for a very extensive period of time. Also, as you can see from the above threads, I still make errors sometimes. Once I've worked with it more, I'll consider whether I should go for page mover. Besides, I have yet to reach the 3000 edit requirement for that right. Autoconfirmed is good enough for now as it allows me to move pages, so I can still help out at RM where I can. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-move cleanup[edit]

Following on from your closure and move at Talk:A League of Their Own (UK game show), there were a few things that needed doing. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The navbox edit isn't strictly necessary (although we should try and save the dabbers such as Niceguyedc as much work as possible), but the rest definitely are. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about why I've made any of those edits. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

51 links isn't too bad. Now Daredevil, on the other hand... -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Niceguyedc: Hah, speaking of that. (Sorry for the orange bar, Eventhorizon.) Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with Decision to not move National Gallery to National Gallery, London==[edit]

The arbitrary nature of these obfuscated decisions baffles me. What is the basis for the decision? I provided evidence that multiple reliable sources, including those linked to the National Gallery, London describe the entity as National Gallery, London: does this not carry weight. I am going to request again reconsideration. If not please justify why you made your decision. Did you read prior discussions and weigh the arguments. If so, where is that discussion?Rococo1700 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: Most of the editors in the discussion believed that the page currently at National Gallery is the WP:PTOPIC for the title. There was no consensus to move the page. For a requested move to be successful, you have to convince the community that the move is necessary. Though you provided evidence, it wasn't enough to convince the other editors who participated in the discussion. That's why the page was not moved. You can request again if you want, but I doubt you will get a different result. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. When I read the votes keep support oppose. I am not certain of your conclusion. Do you think more editors should have been involved. Did you count my vote? Since I restarted this discussion? I strongly believe this should be kicked up to a broader discussion since my conclusion is that the name violates Wikipedia policy.

I think the fact that this keeps coming up suggests that the process is not working. We should offer this up to a Move review perhaps. I do not know how the process of letting a wide number of editors in on the voting. How about having all the editors of National Galleries in the world be informed of the vote. If I do this, would I be canvasing. If so, then lest kick this up to Move Review. Again, Wikipedia relies on authoritative sources for its information. Google and the National Library of Congress are authoritative sources in my opinion, and both qualify this as National Gallery, London. In addition, a bibliography search finds ample if not a majority of the sources qualify the name as such. Whether the Gallery or not qualifies this, is not my concern. I do not think this Move review was correctly decided when your read the commentary. I do not think enough editors commented. This process did not work well.

Example of the tally 1) "Keep, or 2nd best National Gallery, London" - judge that as you will 2) "Support the addition of natural disambiguation and disambig page at the base name." In my opinion this is a move. 3) "Support the proposed move" In my opinion this is a move. 4) "Oppose" the move 5) "Keep as is" 6) "Keep" 7) "Oppose the London gallery is the primary topic for this name." In my opinion this is a move.

This does not take into account my opinion that started this request. So we have 3 keeps, 3 moves, one keep or move to National gallery, London. Plus my opinion to move. Again, Wikipedia is not political primary, and if you want we can request more input, but this is not enough to close the discussion or if not this is now reason to re-open it againRococo1700 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: I strongly encourage you to take a step back and revisit the Wikipedia policies regarding consensus and the essay outlining what consensus is. There must be agreement among the Wikipedia community for an action to be taken, and this agreement was not achieved during the period of the move discussion. Pushing aggressively after a discussion has concluded is disruptive and does not help the project. If anything, the request was leaning towards not moved because more editors participating in the first move request stated that they opposed the move. I know some of them wrote "keep" instead of "oppose", but it means the same thing here: they want the article "kept" at the current title. If we count all the !votes, it would be 5 opposes to 3 supports (including yours). Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Eventhorizon51 1) I disagree with your math, I count 4 move and 4 keep, with one wavering. 2) I have read the consensus and would remind you to read it also. Below the discussions of contests, majority, etc it states:

  • When in doubt, defer to the policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors.

As I cite in my objection to the move decision, this title does not fit WP:PrimaryTopic, please read that

  • This is not just a majority vote, when the math is so close, that should be an indication to keep to discussion open, rather than claim it is a settled issue. The reason this question is brought up again and again by different editors should raise your curiosity as to why. Also when you say more editors participating in first discussion, how many of them overlap with the present discussion. Also what I am advocating is to return to something closer to the original title of this article, which appears to have been arbitrarily moved and the last discussion failed to revert this arbitrary change.

Again, I recommend you review the nature of the prior discussion. I have requested your decision be reversed at Wikipedia:Move review.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: It's obvious that you feel very strongly about this, but the community ultimately decides what should be done. Let's just wait and see how the move review and second move request turn out. However, I ask that you respect whatever the outcome is and not push this any further regardless of what the result is. That would be disruptive and counterproductive to both your argument and the project as a whole. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My plan for moving the title from National Gallery to National Gallery, London[edit]

I have no idea how the Move review is settled or on what basis. It seems to have devolved into an argument about whether we have an argument.

I will wait till Christmas, and re-open the discussion.

I fear I did not open the discussion to enough editors. I think we should set up a series of facts that need to be accepted before we can say that state the WP:PrimaryTopic argues one way or another. Then the discussion will be less mushy about why this should be changed. I am going to post a neutral statement on all the talk pages of Galleries and Art groups and nomenclature groups, and lets get a clear discussion started on the topic of whether specific places or specific institutions should have ownership of common names as regards this institution. I will likely make the move first and then ask others to justify why it should be moved back according to criteria without merely saying: "the way things are is the way things are" or that it is WP:PrimaryTopic, just because they say so, when I have argued using evidence that it is not. I think "holy cows" are difficult to slaughter. This name has become a holy cow.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Eventhorizon51. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)