User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timrollpickering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

GAR

Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall has just undone every single Star Wars move you did with the summary "I like the "Episode IV" title better."

I don't have the ability to move them all back, can you help? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone else is already reversing these moves and left a warning on the users page. If any are missed, leave a list here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying to your comments on my talk page

I've gotten around to it as a sub-section of the discussion here.

I can't blame you for "find[ing] it telling" that I've taken my time on the topic, but I've mostly been poking and prodding to try and figure out where people are at. To, as Patrick Henry once said, "[hold] the subject up in every light of which it is capable" -- because I think how we treat ideas, both secular and religious, is very important. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Playmander was about apportionment; fairness clause was consequent to 1980s results"

Would the latter have happened without the former? They are intrinsically linked, it's indisputable! Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Then povide the citation that one clealy led to the other. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Crimea move

It should be the other way around. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be moved back to its original location at Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the original reversion request was formatted the wrong way round. Annoyingly the site is slowing down as I try to undo the mess. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Still needs fixing. Let me explain:

The article about the republic should be Crimea.
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be a redirect to Crimea.
Autonomous Republic of Crimea should be a redirect to Crimea.

HTH,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the priority is to restore the edit history and this is taking a long time due to a server mess. It can only be moved after that. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks a ton bud. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack! Huge amount of content deleted from Crimea page! Spent a lot of time on that... Will it come back? Edit: Nevermind. See it is restored now. Thank you! --Chris Alemany (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay it should all be restored to the previous title. A bot will sort out the redirects. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TIES

Thanks for your suggestion to redirect the template. I'm no expert, but can I ask you to please take a look at the categorisation and other template syntax to see how this might be achieved? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 East Harlem apartment buildings explosion

Just wanted to point out that you moved this article from the above title to East Harlem apartment buildings explosion, based on an RM request that said it was uncontroversial. I assume this request came from User:Epicgenius, and if it did, he was well aware that it was controversial, because I disagreed with it. After you moved it, I assume you saw the various back and forth moves initiated by Epicgenius, and you move protected it - however, an article shouldn't be renamed on the basis of being a "uncontroversial" change, and then be protected because there's a controversy about the move (move-warring by definition indicates a disagreement, and therefore controversy).

I'm well aware that any protected state of an article is bound to be considered the "wrong state" by one side or the other, and I'm not requesting that you undo your protection or that you should restore the name to the more appropriate one abovr, but, since you are an admin, I think you might want to mention to Epicgenius that requesting a move on the basis of it being "uncontroversial" when there's an active disagreement about it, that he was involved in, is deceitful and collegial, and that he should not do it again, especially since his claim put you in the awkward position of having to take contradictory actions ("uncontroversial" verses move protection). Best, BMK (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you point me to the uncontroversial request at RM? I can't seem to find it. BMK (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be rude, BMK, but you should really look before you speak. The request is here. Best, Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical requests are often made on move disputes because the software means a repeated move is hard to revert. In such disputes the article should be moved back to the status quop ante and then any change from that discussed, hence the temporary move protect. There may be an issue with how the autosummary is generated by the template. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

. Clearly that was the case here, so Epicgenius' request for a "non-controversial" so-called (but not actually) "tecnical" move was deceptive.

TRP - This was clearly not a valid technical request, and you really should not have changed the name, which was perfectly reasonable and acceptable under MOS just as it was. If you objected to what you perceived as move warring when you went to look at it, then the correct admin action was to freeze it at the status quo name and to tell both involved editors to settle their dispute on the talk page. Changing the name and then freezing it was not an option in responding to a non-tecnical and disputed --therefore inherently "controversial" -- request. I'm afraid you're giving Epigenius the impression that venue shopping and mispresentation are legitimate ways to get what he wants, as opposed to collegial discussion to reach a consensus. BMK (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, if there's any guideline on Wikipedia that you should be reading and applying to every edit you do, it's not the myriad MOS guidelines (which, by the way, are not policy, and therefore mot mandatory) it's WP:COMMONSENSE. It would do you, and this project, a lot of good if you were to take it under advisement. BMK (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So then why don't you discuss this naming dispute on the article talk page rather than TRP's talk page? (BMK, you talked yourself out of this discussion on a similar topic, so would you like to continue discussing the issue there or start a new topic on Talk:East Harlem apartment buildings explosion?)

By the way, while the MOS may not be a policy, it is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles, and it is the default policy regarding Wikipedia articles. It states, at the very top:

Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Since you are not the first major contributor, BMK, you will need to discuss this issue at one of the article's talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Bergfeld for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Bergfeld 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/Mark Bergfeld 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymmu (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this AfD discussion has been relisted in order for a consensus to be reached. If you have an opinion on the article, please consider joining the discussion. Andy (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Timrollpickering, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo...

Hi Tim - FYI noted feminist theorist Tarc has just posted a diatribe on Jimbo's talk accusing me you and B2c of having an anti-woman agenda. Not sure if it's worth your time to engage but wanted to let you know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about this revert. What's the difference between "production photos" and "broadcast footage of any form"? To me, the reader, the sentence as is sounds like no footage (even pictures of any sort) exist. This should be clarified? 101090ABC (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Photos taken in the studio were never broadcast as part of the programme and are not footage by any definition. They're different from telesnaps, off-air screen grabs of the broadcast programme which were never taken for this one. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. I've made an addition to the article making the situation more clear to the reader. 101090ABC (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Leader of the Conservative Party (UK)

You may wish to comment on some proposals which I have made at Talk:Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)#Exact_dates_2 - a response to a request which you made more than seven years ago. Better late than never? Alekksandr (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CFD backlog

Hi Tim, If I remember rightly, you got me into closing CFDs, which led to my RfA, and here I am still! There is currently a backlog at WP:CFDAC, and we'd be glad of your help if you have the time. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 13:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move review for 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. 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. Kingsindian (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of the Royal Free and University College Medical School

Category:Alumni of the Royal Free and University College Medical School, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Alumni of the UCL Medical School. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza conflict title

The "three month moratorium" was set to end a disruptive a move request that would revert the title to a previous one. I don't think the moratorium was intended to prevent the title from being changed to a new one. Considering that the article is a current event, changing the title so that it better reflects the current situation is important. Updatability is what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. This is why I believe the move request at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Requested move should be allowed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion moratoriums including that one are intended to prevent constant discussion of the title and proposed alternatives, not just a single option. This is especially the case with contentious subjects where either side will be back at the first opportunity. There is a MRV on the original move that could chose to relist if it finds the original finding needs revising but constant discussion on the title is not productive for the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: I was thinking of putting in a move review request for 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, but the page says to first talk to the closer. So here goes. The original title of the page was "Operation Protective Edge" which dealt specifically with the events starting in July 2014. Since it was an Israeli military name, people were unhappy with it and tried to make it neutral. Unfortunately, the new name chosen (it is unclear if there was even consensus on it - there were two requests here and here in parallel) was overly broad (dealing with the whole of 2014) and has been creating all sorts of confusion since then. There have been at least 5 or 6 sections on the talk page just warring over the lead as to what it should include. See my summary of some of the attempts here. I believe there should be at least a move request allowed towards a neutral name, to make it clear that the page is just dealing with the post July section. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There's already been a move review of the decision that got it to the current title so it's as clear as anything can be that there was consensus for that. This whole topic area is frankly a mess that invariably gets out of control and where people keep coming back at the first opportunity so I'd rather not lift the moratorium unilaterally and set things off again. If an MRV wishes to overturn it and deal with that then fine. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Thanks, I did not know about the move review about the earlier move. If I want to make an appeal to lift the moratorium (because this is really becoming a pain in the neck), I should file a move review request? Kingsindian (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The name of the page was changed without a consensus. The IDF military name might be considered POV, but it is a well-defined name for a specific time frame. Whatever the new name is, it should reflect a specif time period, and not the whole year of conflict. There is nothing POV for using one side's name for the operation, there is no suggestion that the operation is good or bad in using its name. See Operation Barbarossa for example. Of course if there is any other official name given to the conflict by the Palestinians, it should be referenced equally in the article. - 188.4.42.170 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the article title change had consensus or not has already been subject to a review. Any further assertion of no consensus made here will be ignored. As for the substantial points about what the title should be, save them for any future move discussion rather than filling up a talkpage section that's about the temporary moratorium on endless RMs. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@188.4.42.170: I have opened a move review for this. You might want to add your thoughts there. The link is in the section below. Kingsindian (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendums article tagging

Hi Tim. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category: Woden/Wōden

Hi, I have undeleted Category:Woden and turned it into a redirect to Category:Wōden, which is what the filer actually requested (and is possible for people to type into the search box). I've also created Category:Odin as a redirect while I was at it, since that is a very likely search target. I'm not sure Wōden is the correct place for this category - if we're going to have an overarching category with a macron, it should logically be the reconstructed Wōdanaz rather than the Anglo-Saxon Wōden - and as such I wish I had seen the proposal, but I think what I've done at least fixes the search problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Yngvadottir: And I have fixed both pages. On categories the normal redirecting doesn't work, and instead the {{Category redirect}} template should be used. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism (again)

Hey Tim! We really must stop meeting link this :) I'm not sure how long you've been with the project or how long you've been concerned with "ethno-religious topics" for lack of a better term but it was decided 6 or 7 years ago that Semites, and anti-Semites, and antisemitism, and antisemites, would be completely different things, well, sort of. (Palestinians are Semites, blah blah blah). As such I've reverted your edit[1] as there didn't seem to be any such "speedy" discussion. I hope I didn't screw up, but, either way, that ship has long since sailed. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A speedy rename doesn't need discussion, just a notice with a valid reason and no objections. There was a move discussion on the main article which changed it to Anti-Semitism and the category is following accordingly. It was proposed and not opposed on the speedy rename page for 48 hours and then moved for processing but for some technical reason the rename bot took 12 hours to get round to doing it. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't notice the main article had been renamed. I supported the hyphenated version back in the day, so I have no complaint. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rule on RM moratorium

Talk:Love Eterne (film): I created another discussion a few hours after the previous one was closed, is this allowed? Please advise. Timmyshin (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't currently a hard and fast rule but it depends on a mixture of the options on the table, the users involved and the level of discussion. Sometimes a discussion brings up an alternate title that's best considered in its own right and so a follow-on RM is useful and accepted as a way forward. But that's very different from immediately launching a new RM on exactly the same options as the earlier one, and starting it both times, because the previous didn't go the way you wanted. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So if I start an RM to a different title it would be OK right? Timmyshin (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

- Depends very much on the individual circumstances and what came up in the discussion. If there was overwhelming support for the current title then an alternative is unlikely to go anywhere. If there was heavy dissatisfaction with the current one but dislike for the alternative a more focused discussion may help. But in general wait a while and discuss it informally rather than launching new RMs immediately after the old have closed. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Irish linguists

I just didn't (and still don't) understand the difference Category:Linguists from Ireland vs. Category:Linguists from the Republic of Ireland. For this reason I unified them. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See Ireland and Republic of Ireland for the difference in area. Changing the use away from the configuration of the articles is always controversial and should be discussed first. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The policy is WP:BRD. As for the distiction, I consider it obvious that the intention of both categories creators' was to to collect scientists of Irish nationality, and that the later wasn't aware of the earlier. Else, why are both categories in Category:Scientists by nationality? If you keep them separate, half of the linguists won't be found. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The categories were set up under the current names at the same time. Ireland is a complex case and categories are generally set up with one for the state and another for the island to also catch Northern Ireland which is also in the UK categories. And please don't use disputed terms like "Irish nationality" in these discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't have a look at the two linguist categories I'm speaking about, did you? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did. They're confused, not helped by using templates to generate tables of links and automatic categorisation that doesn't take the particular national case into account. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I just posted the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Irish linguists. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Irish WikiProject would be the place to look to on a matter such as this. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_2#Category:Linguists_from_Ireland. You may wish to contribute. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)