Jump to content

User talk:Zppix/2018/January

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


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Move

Hi, Why did you move Talk:Wallingford railway station to Talk:Wallinford railway station (England) ? .... It was a typo and a typo I fixed on the 30th Dec ..... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Good catch, I didn't notice, ill fix asap --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Appears it was already fixed --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Yeah sorry it was fixed sometime today but I was just wondering why it was moved to that name in the first place ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Unintentional typo on my part when moving thats all, also if a typo is fixed in a move request please be sure to update the template :) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah right sorry I didn't know if you used a script or something that caused it, Okie dokie no worries thanks for your help :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Davey2010 Do n't apolgize for my screw up, I should of paid more attention to what I was doing... anyway i do sometimes use scripts to carry out page mover-type tasks, such as Andy's pageswap, aswell as the direct move link in the req moves templates that are the talk pages. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of British School of Osteopathy. 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. House1090 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row incident. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick Robinson

I'm in UK, and agree with the result of the discussion at Talk:Nick Robinson (journalist)#Requested move 6 January 2018.

You may, however, have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. Your move broke 119 links. I've seen much worse, but someone is going to have to fix them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I must have somehow managed to forgot to clean that up... I normally try to get as many links fixed as possible and I guess I got sidetracked, Ill look into fixing that when I get time Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Planet Earth

Please could you reverse your close at Talk:Planet Earth (1986 series)#Requested move 10 January 2018 and move to the alternatives suggested and agreed upon. --woodensuperman 10:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carroll Quigley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carroll Quigley. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

16:19:28, 23 January 2018 review of submission by Ndfiz


Hi Zppix, Thank you for your recent review! Many of the sources listed are in German, but several do seem to fit my understanding of the guidelines of notability as reliable, secondary and independent sources. There are three substantial articles from major German journalistic sources: Seuddeutsche Zeitung (the largest print news media in Germany) (source 1), Berliner Wochenblatt Verlag (Berlin based weekly paper focusing on local issues) (source 13), Abendzeitung-Meunchen (Munich based daily paper) (source 17). Other independent industry sources, such as Austrian Charts (source 31), Musicline (source 30), iTunesCharts (source 29) are used to verify chart position or other small factual things. I included many other sources from German TV networks and media groups such as ZDF, ProSeiben, RBB and Universal Music Germany as background on specific concerts or events. Are these too close to the subject to include as sources? Would you be able to help me understand better which sources are problematic? Ndfiz (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Ndfiz (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 in science

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 in science. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisting unopposed technical RMs

FWIW, standard procedure for unopposed RMs is to treat them as though they had been listed as uncontroversial technical requests and wait for an admin to move the page, or perhaps actively request an admin to close it; non-admins relisting in the hope that some further discussion will be generated, as you did at Talk:Princess Kishi, is not generally recommended. Please keep this in mind in the future. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Vicksburg

Really? The !votes were nearly evenly split and the supposed evidence provided was faulty. As I pointed out the siege article gets more page views than the city and the campaign about half as much. [25] That pretty much completely undercuts any claim of primary topic. olderwiser 23:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not a count of votes, its based upon the arguments made, and the closers judgement of policy. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Your close did not say what policy considerations you made. There is no validity to the claim it is primary topic based on page views. olderwiser 11:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Terrible close, should have been at the very least relisted. I have vacated it and relisted. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I have also vacated the close at Talk:Allison Williams (actress). 16:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, I highly suggest reading through the literature about RM closes again. You don't close an RM as  Done or  Not done, you close them as moved or not moved (or no consensus). 16:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for posting four times, but I just finished going through all of your RM closes for January. You started off well, but those last two closes where the consensus wasn't immediately obvious (and/or unanimous) were very poor indeed. Consider this a warning to be more careful in the future, and if there's anything other than a unanimous vote please make an attempt to leave the reasoning behind your actions. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)