User talk:Red Slash

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

Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.)

[1]

Nomination of George W. Bush and the Iraq War for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George W. Bush and the Iraq War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush and the Iraq War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Please pull the Sarah Brown RM for a second

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The format of the next RM is under discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George H. W. Bush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahem[edit]

I've noted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closure. There is no way that was a clear-consensus issue. Please revert. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. With all due respect, yes, it was. There wasn't a single policy-driven argument made against the move, other than the reasonable concerns about what the scope of the article would or should be. Those concerns were explicitly dealt with in the close. "Involuntary celibacy" literally means someone wants to have sex but isn't able to; it is obvious that this is not the same thing as "incels". (I know plenty of sweet young ladies who would just love to be married, but haven't found the right guy yet. They're involuntarily celibate. They are not followers of the incel ideology. And the bulk of the article doesn't address their situation.) I suppose my close most mirrors the opinion of User:Rhododendrites and User:Kaldari. Given the scope of the article, oppose !votes such as yours didn't apply. Barring opinions like yours, I struggle to see a single oppose !vote from anyone that is backed in policy. User:SmokeyJoe's would be, of course, but was left unsourced (or worse, contradicted by sources). User:Willwill0415 made great points, though the article wasn't really about "involuntary celibacy" so much as "incel" ideology, so a new article would have to be written at the former. And since the idea the article is about has only a little to do with actual involuntary celibacy, User:VQuakr's appeal to WP:UCRN works to support rather than oppose a move. Red Slash 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That is absolute bull. There is no possible way you can claim there is clear consensus to move. No way. You should self-revert. No possible way anyone could claim this MR was either clear consensus nor not controversial. No freick way. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If you're discounting votes or interpreting them to mean the inverse of what they say, then I'd say that's more or less the definition of not clear consensus. Writ Keeper  15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Add to the fact that you have had several long time editors, including two admins, tell you that you've made a mistake, it should be obvious that it is neither clear consensus nor non-controversial. If you can't see that, the discussion at ANI needs to be re-opened. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A lot of people disagreeing doesn't make a move request's consensus unclear; those who opposed said things like "this is a neologism" (irrelevant per WP:AT), "we should write about a movement, not people" (irrelevant, because the article is still about a movement), "'incel', as opposed to 'involuntary celibate', isn't notable" (it is, quite obviously, and if it isn't, that's for AFD to decide), or "I don't feel like I have to explain myself" (yes, yes please do)... It was a very clear, focused consensus. (Also, discarding irrelevant !votes is precisely what a move closer is supposed to do. This is why humour was never going to be moved to humor. A bunch of Americans shouting "support!" doesn't move the needle at all against even one who says "oppose per WP:RETAIN". )Red Slash 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Red, I also think this was a stretch, especially considering the relisting period wasn't over and comments were still coming in. Would you be willing to move back and let the relisting run its course?--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the high level of participation ongoing in the thread, I think it would be better to reopen it and move it back. I think that is the best avenue going forward. Valoem talk contrib 20:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I too prefer to see admins close contentious discussions -- or, as the case may be, discussions on contentious subjects -- but I also don't think there was anything wrong with the close otherwise and would say as much at the [seemingly inevitable] MRV. Regarding "high level of participation", prior to it being closed there was 1 edit on May 8, 1 edit on May 7, and 0 edits on May 6. Maybe it should've been allowed another full 7 days, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at recent participation at this formerly active discussion and conclude it had died down sufficiently to close. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Red Slash, how about the issue of every other page named after any sort of phenomenon, none are named for the people 0 eg no "white supremacist" page etc.? So it goes against established naming guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Cas, this has been established independent of this RM. The article is about the subculture called "incels". A handful of people want it to be about the broader phenomenon that could be called "involuntary celibacy," that that has been shot down repeatedly. It's the subculture which has received a glut of news coverage as of late, not merely the phenomenon of people who cannot find romantic/sexual partners. I supported keeping it at its original location when it wasn't clear what the future of the page was -- the fraught combined concept of people who cannot find a partner and the subculture that takes that in misogynistic, and sometimes violent directions -- but as soon as it became clear it was exclusively about the latter, it seemed clear that we should name it after the subculture that is the subject of the page. Frankly I don't know why it was controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You know why. Admin bias and IRC cabal groupthink. The article is clearly about the incel subculture and not the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy. I am relieved to see it is now properly titled, at least, if the body of the article was not going to be about its purported title. Aquinassixthway (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Demonym (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to American
Zaragoza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Castile

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page move[edit]

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sig fix[edit]

Please fix your sig to use modern HTML; it's triggering the "lint" cleanup lists, and adding pages to the non-HTML5-compliant list for no good reason, an impediment to our migration efforts to pure HTML5. It's a quick fix:

  • Old: [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]]Red Slash (this looks awful to anyone on bad-HTML patrol)
  • New: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red </span>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]]Red Slash
  • Even better: [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]]Red Slash (red isn't semantically a property of a trailing whitespace character).

 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature as requested by SMcCandlish! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeedly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Crayola crayon colors for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Crayola crayon colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians[edit]

I'm afraid I find this edit rather unhelpful. No edit summary, and it occurred mere seconds after 23:56, 24 July 2018‎ Andrewa (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (15,414 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Andrewa moved page Talk:Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago to Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians: RM), and before I had the chance to close the RM as I would otherwise have done (with an edit summary of moved).

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Andrewa, please revert me. I was just checking the backlog, and without checking to see how recently it had been done, I saw that the move was performed and the request unclosed, so I closed it. I meant absolutely no offense. I apologize. Red Slash 00:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. All good. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

East Timor: Move Review[edit]

A Move Review is being considered for East Timor. WP:NAC requires editors who conduct NACs to have "the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented". It appears that no review of the evidence was undertaken prior to writing the reasons for closure of the move request. Hence, I (the Nominator), am following WP:MR and seeking information directly from you beforehand. I welcome dialogue. You have been involved in previous contentious closures. In this case, it appears that you, as Closer, did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, because you do not appear to have considered the applicable policies and guidelines. For instance, both WP:MPN and WP:TIND should have been considered. As indicated in section 5 of the Talk page, a process for future Move Requests was being considered. I invite your response within five days. Te Karere (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for East Timor[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of East Timor. 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. Te Karere (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Car[edit]

As you were the nom of the RM discussion and other editors who have had major/recent involved have been notified, I'm notifying you of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Red Slash. 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)

Page moves on Trump articles[edit]

Dude... you know that these articles are under discretionary sanctions, right? You're moving these pages without discussion and against previous consensus. You need to move these back before I receive more reports from other editors and you wind up being dragged to a noticeboard. Your moves are going to get you in trouble, man... I don't want to see that happen. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page mover revoked[edit]

Hello. I've revoked your page mover rights, as I see a pattern inconsistent with this right. This would fall under WP:PMRR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Were there any moves made that were inappropriate? Red Slash 21:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
How did you read the consensus on Trump? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I carefully examined the talk page prior to moving. There has been no full move request in over a year and a half. I imagined that WP:BRD would apply in the case that someone still disagreed. My rationale for acting boldly was to avoid a similar scenario to this one, which wasted a lot of people's time. Apparently that time-saving measure doesn't work here. No worries; I've started, participated in and closed quite literally hundreds of move requests, so another one is no biggie. I just would love to keep my tools to allow me to keep closing requests like this one which required the tools. Red Slash 21:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll be honest I'm not at all impressed with this move - this is not what EM is for. And another relevant thing, the last thing we need at this moment is rogue actors going all bold over Trump pages. So you can consider this a rushed removal while we straighten this out. I'm going to review some more moves, including any which are justified with "I do not like this title and think it stinks", so bear with me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
OK I've had a closer look. I'm not going to take anything back or harp on too much but I will put the flag back for now. And you'll get some added comments because I'm still not impressed. Please consider when it's appropriate to use the EM flag in constrast to ordinary page moves. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Please use more appropriate descriptive summaries. Please respect consensus, previous discussions and the RM process. Please be extra careful with controversial topics. And please be sure to take a refresh of Wikipedia:Page mover. I'll save the lecture for next time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What is "EM"? The "EM flag"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, PM. EM is the internal jargon for the group, like sysop is for admins: Special:ListUsers/extendedmover -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Talk/Talk[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Talk:Talk/Talk, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Talk/Talk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Talk/Talk during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)