User talk:Amakuru/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Galyporp

Why did you delete it for a hoax? It's a real thing. Yellowstring (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yellowstring: Sorry, I did realise afterwards, when I read your message that it was not a hoax. However, it's only a real thing in the sense that it is a fictional story in your school comic. It's not actually a real species of alien, and the comic itself does not meet the requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. So even though I agree it's not a hoax of vandalism, it's still correct to delete it, since it is not verifiable in any reliable sources. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cynwyd

Hey, you can move Cynwyd (disambiguation) to the base name now. I believe all the incoming links are corrected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Oh OK, thanks. Done!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Infiniti Q70

Hi, regarding Talk:Infiniti Q70#Requested move 24 August 2016, you closed this with the remark "Moved. No objections". There actually was prior objections back in May in the section right above it (Talk:Infiniti Q70#Name Change). I do think it should be taken into consideration that the new name only applies to one generation of the car. The old name "Infiniti M" was used by all four generations. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: so would you like me to reverse the move and relist it? I can do that if you like, but I think at the moment that even if I do that I'd be inclined to add a support vote to the survey as well. It doesn't seem right to have the article at a title that is not the current and active name for this marque. All models sold today and for the past three years have been called the Q70, not the M. Another option might be to have a split, with Infiniti M only covering the old models. That would be similar to Ford Escort and Ford Focus, where the car name was updated along with a model refresh. Let me know what you think anyway  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Escort and Focus are a different situation because the cars are unrelated. The Infiniti M was merely renamed Q70, so it would be pointless to have two articles for the same car. What normally happens in these situations is the longer running or more common name prevails—Infiniti M in this case. When and if an all-new generation is released, this would then probably be best catered for in a new split Infiniti Q70 article. For now, I would suggest returning the page to the former name. It is just wrong to have an article covering four generations of car—all called M—given the Q70 title that applies only to a facelift of the fourth generation. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: No problem. We can continue the discussion on the talk page itself. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your help! Mc twizzle (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Xu (surname)

Hi, you've messed up the Xu (surname) page. Now only half of the information is there and it is misleading. I am unable to change it back. Please, either keep it the way before OR wait until a full consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.120.180 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, please do not only put one Xu surname under the main Xu surname page!! Opacitatic (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Opacitatic: there was no consensus for a move. Please see Talk:Xu (surname). The move request was closed as "no consensus". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a move in the first place? Anyway, the information on the page now is misleading. 10:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opacitatic (talk • contribs)

Rwandan Genocide

Regarding your merger of subheading (Other nations). I do not think involvement of religious groups should be classified as nation, It is confusing. Mail2nith (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mail2nith: well OK, it's a fair point, but what would you call it? The larger section is about the "internatoinal response", and I think the Catholic Church logically falls under that. Although a lot of its actors could be considered local, it is an international organisation...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru Ok Mail2nith (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Move on Lisbon Airport

Hi, while closing the RM and moving the page on Lisbon Airport, you seem to have forgotten to move the talk page along with it. It's no biggie, I've done it now, but just letting you know :) . Cheers, MikeLynch (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@MikeLynch: oh right, OK, yes. Thanks for that. I must try harder to check every time that the talk page has gone through successully. It would be nice if the message saying it couldn't move with the article was a bit more prominent!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fast Girls

Hi, any chance you can complete this page move per the outcome of the discussion? Thanks! PC78 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@PC78: yes, done. Thanks for reminding me. I was waiting for the incoming links to be sorted out, but it seems they're all fine now. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsigned

Suggest you sign it rather than me tagging it. TIA Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Done. Thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Would that all life's problems (or even Wikipedia's) were so easily and swiftly solved... not having any particular RM in mind... maybe... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of highest-grossing Telugu films page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Amakuru. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Page moves, railway stations

Hi, where were these moves discussed? They go against established convention. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: no, they don't go against established convention. We have never made up our own disambiguators if they aren't used by national rail. Sutton (London) railway station is so named because that is its national rail name, not because (Sutton) is a Wikipedia disambiguator. All the moves I made were reverting earlier undiscussed moves so need a move request and probably a change of uk station guidelines if they are to go ahead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Over the last year or so, a number of stations have been moved the other way - but after discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, Amakuru. The situation is currently messy to the point that it's hard to tell what the convention is. In the ones you've moved, it's difficult to see the justification in including the parentheses in the middle of the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

One major justification for the parentheses in the middle is that that way templates work nicely - Sutton (London) for instance. Also I believe because the disambiguation is on the place name, not that it's a railway station. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given for these moves are totally specious in that the stations in question are all closed, so National Rail would of course have nothing to say about them. The page names are about as WP:UNNATURAL as they come. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to put in a RM request for the Newcourt station article or not? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, Mjroots, I realise you did ask me to do this. I just wanted to have a look through the existing articles and decide the best way forward to resolve this. It might be that some sort of RfC or wider discussion is merited, as there is a divergence of opinions right now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with a wider discussion. Suggest WT:UKT would be a suitable venue. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Iron Lady

Hi Amakuru. Considering your comments here about redirecting Iron Lady to Margaret Thatcher, I would just like to inform you that this matter is presently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Lady. Your vote or comment would be very much appreciated. Many thanks.--Nevé–selbert 00:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing a move request

Hi Amakuru! Could you take a look at Talk:Samuel Clark (U.S. politician)#Requested move 27 July 2016 and assess the apparent consensus after several relistings? I would close it myself but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Thanks in advance for your assistance! — JFG ^talk 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: OK, done! not the easiest one to assess, but hopefully the best result...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice close, thanks! In the spirit of clearing the backlog of thorny cases, I have tackled Talk:Saber-toothed cat and Talk:Camel case. Do you feel up to the task for Talk:World Championships in Athletics? — JFG ^talk 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: OK, that one is done too. Thanks! The backlog is looking a little less long now...

Ah, the joys of a job well done — JFG ^talk 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)¨

Move review for Battle of Polog

An editor has asked for a Move review of Battle of Polog. 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. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki language

Dear Saraiki is a language. So the page Saraiki dialect be moved to Saraiki language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.30.105 (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 182.186.30.105 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC) kindly move the page to Saraiki language. as Saraiki has many dialects also. All dialects including Jhangvi dialect and Shahpuri dialect be shwn its dialects.39.37.28.177 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Closing move request for Mac OS

Hi Amakuru, I saw you weighed in after the move of OS X to macOS and I'd like to ask, can you please now also take a look at Talk:Mac OS#Requested move 1 October 2016 and close that discussion / perform the move if there is consensus? Thank you! –Samvscat (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Today's RMs

He Amakuru, just to let you know, the RM at ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser is still open, and Yamada Line is redirecting to Yamada Line (JR East).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: thanks for the heads up on ENS Nasser. I've been having a lot of trouble with Wikipedia on my new machine at work recently - for some reason Google Chrome frequently hangs when attempting to load or save a page (intermittently - at other times it's fine). I have searched high and low for a solution but not found one. In this case, I hit Save on my talk page close, then went off and made the move, forgetting to check back whether the Save had worked or not. As for Yamada Line, I held off moving the dab page because there are still a ton of incoming links. Most likely it might be best to mass fix those first, but I don't have the time right now...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been there. I've had to stop editing on mobile a number of times.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ENS Anwar El Sadat move page

Hello Amakuru, could you also move Egyptian ship Anwar El Sadat to ENS Anwar El Sadat as you did for ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser per talk ?, the moving of both ship article titles was discussed during the talk. - AHMED XIV (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Osho - Move review closure

are you seeing consensus for that move request? I'm not. I have proposed a review. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

move review is now open if you care to comment. Pandroid (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

can you close out the review? it's been over a week and it seems consensus is to undo the move and reopen discussion Pandroid (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pandroid: I'm not sure if I'd count as uninvolved enough to close that one. I argued quite extensively with the closer for an overturning before the MR was opened. But I agree with you the consensus does seem quite clear at this stage.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought that's only an issue when it comes to closing a move request, but not a review where consensus was arrived at without your input? where's the bias in that? how long do these reviews generally sit before they are closed out? Pandroid (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding of an image

Please can you add an image to an article I have created - Laurence L'Estrange. It is 'LaurenceLE.jpeg' and I have uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons but do not have access to posting it yet as I am not an autoconfirmed user.

Many thanksHistoryAlight (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@HistoryAlight: I moved the image into the infobox. Let me know if that's what you wanted. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: That is brilliant thanks. When I messaged you, I didn't see it had uploaded out of the infbox. Thank you, once again HistoryAlight (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hadi

Hello. Seven days passed despite the technical reopening. We will not discuss another seven days then there is consensus and that the seven-day rule is clear. So, to whom does it apply to have someone to close the request ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I have relisted it, so it will be discussed for another seven days. So far, only you as the nominator, and one other IP editor, has supported the request so it's clearly a good idea to get more input into the discussion. There is no rush on these things, and relisting is perfectly normal. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not possible to extend the discussiuon of only three to four days? Finally, if no other is opposed to renaming in seven days, will you do it ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

some reliables sources use his official name and some uses the other form who is not used by officials. So there are consensus, the page should be moved. I have given the sources. Can I move the page ? Panam2014 (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pannam2014: OK, I've moved it for you now. Another editor already closed the move request. It's surprising that the user who protested last week in WP:MRV then didn't post an oppose vote when it was reopened, but there it is. All the best. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Small world

By coincidence, I was thinking of you yesterday when I came across this list. I'm not sure it's here to stay but Paul Kagame should be added now, don't you think? As for RickinBaltimore, I'm still investigating as there seems to be more to say. Those comments will tend to be on the RfA's talk page now... Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: well, if there are the sources out there to back it up then I'm sure he could merit a place on the list! It's quite a hard category to objectively identify though... how do we judge if the person is (a) a despot, and (b) enlightened? I'll keep an eye on the RickinBaltimore talk page, just in case something new comes up. I haven't managed to make it to any of the meetups recently, but will attempt to do so soon, so hopefully see you around some time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PLease help with something

first of all, are you an atheist? I noticed that a lot of wikipedia admins are, which I find very annoying because they keep disrespecting my beliefs then saying that they don't believe in God as their excuse. Anyways, I need help to fix a certain article that probably can only be fixed by an admin, but I doubt you would want to help me if you're an atheist, because it is religion related. So please respond, thank you. Obeyel (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Amakuru.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amakuru. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Same Old Blood Rush With a New Touch Limited.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Same Old Blood Rush With a New Touch Limited.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Miloš Marković (Serbian water polo) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Miloš Marković (Serbian water polo). Since you had some involvement with the Miloš Marković (Serbian water polo) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: apologies, I thought the redirect had been in existence for longer than that. This entry was a WP:RMT, and I came to make the move as requested. I have now deleted the redirect again. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, it all happened a bit at the same time which was confusing. Fram (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Frexit

Hi, I moved Frexit to French withdrawal form the European Union and you reversed that move. Frexit can't be related to Brexit; Brexit is a common term that all European countries have now adopted into their own languages and it has become the common name. Frexit is not the common name for the French withdrawal and it is not in everyday usage; the newspapers talk about French withdrawal, not about Frexit. I propose that the page be moved until such a time where Frexit becomes the common name for French withdrawal, as I doubt it will be. st170e^talk 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @St170e: there are plenty of sources using "Frexit" in both English and French,[1][2][3] and the topic is becoming a more mainstream following Marine Le Pen's suggestion that it should take place. It is an obvious derived term, it satisfied WP:COMMONNAME more than "French withdrawal from the European Union" as well as being more WP:CONCISE. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Before the Brexit page was moved to its current title, it was named 'United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union' and it was only changed to Brexit after the main referendum. Frexit is more a dictionary term rather than an appropriate article name; it isn't a popular name. We've had pages such as Irexit - where does it all stop? The term 'Frexit' is a newspaper headline. It isn't satisfying WP:COMMONNAME - there are plenty of newspapers that use phrases such as 'France withdrawing/leaving the EU' rather than Frexit. The term hasn't gained much traction and I think it should be changed to my suggestion until such a time when it's a common household name. st170e^talk 16:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: you're welcome to start a move request for this - go to WP:RM and follow the instructions there to get it started. People will then discuss it for seven days and a decision will be made one way or the other. In the mean time though, the usual practice, if it's controversial, is for it to remain at the long term title, which in this case is "Frexit". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Change Talk:IXIT Corporation to Talk:iXIT Corporation?

Hi there, I was trying to change the page of iXIT Corporation talk page from Talk:IXIT Corporation to Talk:iXIT Corporation. The reason for this is that, the company's name is stylised as iXIT Corporation with a lowercase i (which is present in the article itself), however, the talk page is with a capital i. I've tried making the change myself but it doesn't seem to let me so would you be able to do it for me? cheers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I've done that for you. It's done by placing the {{Lowercase title}} template at the top of the talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your cooperation. It's greatly appreciated! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed move to Siobhán

Should the unilateral, undiscussed move of this title back to Siobhán be reversed and challenged? What do you think? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: yes, I have just reverted this. Thanks for the heads up. I think that undiscussed moves can always be reverted if they're controversial, particularly if the previous title was established by RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Commas

Amakuru, I don't understand your position on the commas. Are you saying it's better to leave the unbalanced-comma error than to fix it? Or just saying that there are better fixes than another comma? Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm pretty sure you and I have discussed this at length in the past... here, for example: [Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York/Archives/2013#Requested move 2]. But fundamentally, I don't regard the current construction as an error, therefore I don't particularly think it needs "fixing" as you put it. We came up with a good compromise for metropolitan area articles, and perhaps now a wider compromise is needed for other title constructs involving city and state names, since there is a fundamental disagreement between those who insist on "balanced commas" versus those (like me) who find them unwieldy and not supported by modern usage. So while I prefer the current title to the proposed one with the extra comma, I would be willing to consider alternatives. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hi, state your emnail address too ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Resend your email with address and I'll send it :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: ah, apologies, I thought the email address appeared automatically. Will do that now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And just what you want to receive the reward in, dollars or pounds?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the moves and picking up after my mistakes. Next I can change Earth to Earths. Randy Kryn 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Oh right, yes. Just go ahead and request that on WP:RMTR and I'll be sure to carry it out. It can't possibly be controversial...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Will get to it later this decade. Have you seen this RM? Came across it the other day, a nice light moment on the mothership site. Randy Kryn 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes. Since you had some involvement with the List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. George Ho (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating pages vs. set-index articles

Hi! Because of this edit, I wanted to update you on the differences between dab pages and set-index articles. The Anthroponymy Project has been taking over the pages that list surnames, given names, or both. Those pages are being changed into set-index articles and, though they can often look very similar to disambiguation pages, they are not the same. The way to tell at a glance is to check the bottom of the page; there will usually be a template there that identifies which kind of page it is.

Redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title have been created for the sole purpose of making deliberate links to dab pages, and are supposed to target disambiguation pages only. As more dab pages get transferred to set-index articles, there will be more and more of this type of redirect left over. They need to be deleted (as soon as any links to them are resolved, of course). I've been working on these for the Disambiguation Project, and gradually weeding them out. You've previously declined some of my CSD G6s for these, but I hope you'll help with the housekeeping now. :-) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The guideline for a WP:Set index article says that it must have members of the set have some characteristic in common, in addition to their similarity of name. The example given is Dodge Charger, which is a broad article linking all the specific models that have had that name. Looking at Cordas, this is clearly not a set index. The people listed on the page have nothing in common except their name, and furthermore there is no "article" material on there at all. It is a straight list of people with that name, and therefore a WP:HNDIS disambiguation page, and the redirect from (disambiguation) should stay. Of course, we could also write a separate article about the surname itself, but even that would not be a set index, and most likely we would then require a separate dab page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's taken me a while working with both dab pages and anthroponymy pages to learn the differences, but they are real. Please read MOS:DABNAME and WP:SETNOTDAB.

WP:HNDIS says the pages there include lists of multiple people of the same name (my emphasis). This means people with the same first name and the same last name, such as John Gordon. The template {{hndis}} should only be used on those pages; they are considered disambiguation pages.

But if the page lists only people with the same given name and/or the same surname, then it is under the purview of the Anthroponymy Project and not a dab page. The templates on those pages are {{given name}} or {{surname}}.

According to these standards, Cordas is a surname article, though short. It is not a dab page. (I will now go add a stub template to it, which I should have remembered earlier!) — Gorthian (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Oh well, if you insist on that then I won't argue with you. I've deleted Cordas (disambiguation), I guess it's not really achieving much anyway and unlikely to be a major target for incoming links. If you want to convince me that Cordas really is a name article and not just a list of people with that name, though, I suggest you at least write a sentence or two of prose with citations to introduce the subject. Right now it's a stub with a total prose length of exactly zero words! Some might call that a blank article... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page. As for Cordas, it really is a list article, though only a stub. — Gorthian (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll be welcome to also comment in the Move review currently under way at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:D'Israeli

Hello Amakuru. Please feel free to comment on the move discussion at Talk:D'Israeli#Requested move 15 December 2016. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Amakuru!

Happy New Year!

Amakuru,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Donner60: thank you very much for the greeting, and a happy and prosperous new year to you too!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

reliable sources for Support vote

Are you a real and impartial honest editor ? Defiantly yes therefore I Could know which "reliable sources" tell you that Saraiki is a Language ? If you have any paste them here . I will provide you two times more sources that it is a dialect of Lahnda (Western Punjabi).

Man Booker Prize

You said "the WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't conclusively proven". I agree there's no consensus - little participation and unclear data (NGRAM has serious problems BTW). Andrew said "[CONCISE] doesn't negate WP:COMMONNAME" .. here is right also. CONCISE correctly says that COMMONNAME is required, it's built-in to the essay. Since there is no consensus on COMMONANE, it's contradictory to say there is consensus with CONCISE (which requires COMMONAME). It's putting the cart before the horse. -- GreenC 15:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinction

• I am an layman.
• I speak Y
• But I call it Z.
• Y is mutually intelligible with A , B , C and D.
• A is standard form.
• For centuries A is called language and B , C , D and Y are called its dialects.
• However since last 30 odd years few (NOT ALL) layman speakers of Y (Just like me) want a separate province.
• We start claiming Y as totally separate language from A.
• We start getting support of some Wikipedia users who want every dialect to be labelled as Language.

Question : Is not it fooling and trashing linguistics science on Wikipedia ? My friend Amakuru please be honest when you reply.

Question 2 : What if I start saying that I have not typed English. I have typed Mogo language. Will you create a new article on mogo language spoken by me bcoz If you will write it English I may get offended ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.109.81 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Historic comet observations in China

What the hell do you think you are doing? You are edit warring to keep the article at your preferred title. As an administrator I'm sure you already know that the [{WP:BRD]] principle calls for you to open a discussion when you are reverted. It doesn't mean revert back and then open a discussion. That is a real behaviour problem you have there.

The title you are trying to obliterate is the title chosen at the recent AFD of this article. It has already been discussed and a consensus reached. You claim I should make a RM, but the reality is that should be for you to do. Please return the title to the status quo ante. SpinningSpark 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your latest reply on the article talk page is incompetent as well as infuriating. First of all, I did not move the article to Historic comet observations in China, that was another editor, so you were not reverting me at all. Secondly, you did not revert him either, you moved the article to a completely different title of your own choosing, and against the consensus of the previous discussion. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy by policy. It does not matter that the discussion did not take place at RM. "Move" is a not uncommon result at AFD and this particular discussion was probably somewhat better attended than the backwater that is RM. PLEASE RETURN THE ARTICLE TO THE AGREED TITLE then continue the discussion. SpinningSpark 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I've moved it back. But honestly, Spinningspark you could do with taking a read of WP:CIVILITY. I have never had an admin speak to me in such aggressive tones before, and whatever your opinion of my actions, I think you should discuss them with me calmly. I'm sorry if I angered you, but that's no reason to call me "incompetent" and with "behaviour problems", and insulting the RM process, which has served this encyclopedia so well for many years and which most people accept as the proper venue for in depth title discussions. Anyway, let's move on and see where the discussion goes. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Booker Prize

An editor has asked for a Move review of Booker Prize. 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. GreenC 01:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Winterthur railway station

Though I have no objection to this move, it's worth keeping in mind that about 121 stations (including Winterthur) were moved back to German names in 2013 after Talk:Kaiserslautern Hauptbahnhof#Requested move; I was the admin who did most of them. There were intense discussions about the name in the period 2011-2013 at Talk:Berlin Hauptbahnhof. It seems OK to have the Swiss stations at English names if there is a convention to do so. But if any stations in Germany proper are going to start moving to English then probably a new move discussion should be held. Leaving a ping for User:ZH8000 since he requested the Winterthur move. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. Thanks for this message... I'll leave it up to you - if you'd like me to revert the move and start a full RM discussion I'm happy to do so. I guess the main difference between this and Kaiserslautern Hauptbahnhof is that "Winterthur Hauptbahnhof" doesn't seem to be the name even in German, or by locals. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Checking Category:Swiss Federal Railways stations I see only English names. So in my opinion we could leave this alone. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: ITN

Please do not ping me again, as I had nothing to do with the flawed rationales on both sides that you are trying to highlight by re-opening the discussion. I simply stated what the consensus was, and had no involvement whatsoever in forming it. Never in history has it been more likely that something unexpected will happen at an inauguration, and entrenching people's views makes it less likely that this will be posted should today be particularly memorable, not more. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration

By all means continue to edit war your comments into a closed discussion at ITN if that's what floats your boat, but perhaps continuing the discussion here might be less likely to earn you a block?

No-one disputes that this is news, or that it meets the definition of newsworthy. What you have forgotten is that the criteria for ITN is not that something is published repeatedly or that it would be published by a news organisation. ITN has two criteria. The first is (fairly) objective: Is the article in a fit state for the front page? There are various fairly well accepted rules of thumb to assess this (are there unresolved tags? has a sufficient update reflecting the event been made? etc). The second is largely subjective: Is the event significant enough for inclusion at ITN? This is determined by a consensus of editors voicing their opinion on the candidate. In this case, consensus is clearly against. GoldenRing (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: you may well be right, but the usual way to progress matters on Wikipedia is through discussion. I don't deny anyone the right to hold an opinion, but when my opinions are repeatedly shut down and ignored, I get a annoyed. In no other forum would we shut down a discussion after just a few hours when there's active conversation ongoing. I'm not for a minute suggesting we post the thing against consensus, but conversation never hurt anybody.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd generally agree. However, at ITN, once consensus on a candidate is clear then I think it's generally better to shut it down; there's no point having a long, draining, acrimonious discussion when the result is never going to change. Maybe that's wrong - it happens that way because there's a hard time limit of 7 days for any discussion at ITN, and in practice nothing gets discussed for more than a couple of days before we lose interest and move on to other things, so maybe we're being too much like the news organisations we pretend we're not. But it is the way it works and IMO closing these types of discussions saves a lot of animosity, damaged reputation and wear on the block button. GoldenRing (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Re "conversation never hurt anybody"; having participated at ITN for some time, I can say that's not the case. Dragging out discussions that already have a clear result often results in the discussion going downhill with personal attacks and repetitive arguments. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well those should be dealt with on their own merits. If people violate WP:NPA then let them face the same punishment they would anywhere else. As far as I could tell, we were having a civil discussion over here, and in fact the acrimony has mainly come about because of the decision to close, not the decision to keep it open. I work a lot in WP:RM, and obviously that's a much slower burning venue that ITN, with far less urgency, I appreciate that, but there are thorough forums there to allow everyone to air their views and discussion to run its course. We even have WP:MRV for discussing closures after the fact. Discussion is the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and that applies anywhere IMHO. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it's generally better to not give people the opportunity. Honestly, where was that discussion going to go and what good would it do? That kind of thing tends to obey a sort of variant of Godwin's law where "fucking American" (or words to that general effect) gradually become inevitable. Yes, we can clean up afterwards and hand out blocks all round, but I think it's generally better if the brawl doesn't happen in the first place. GoldenRing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Amakuru. For myself, I find the entire discussion and outcome mind-boggling, and am considering whether to take it to ANI and try to have it reversed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I would hope that you would carefully consider attempting to reverse a clear consensus elsewhere before doing so. I don't think that's a good road to take. This consensus wasn't arrived at for no reason and there is little benefit to dragging it out. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I really struggle to see how ANI, of all places, is the right place to "resolve" this. You're not usually a drama-monger, Brad. Is it that big a deal? GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't pursue this further, in part because I needed to be offline for much of the day for real-world reasons, but this was an indefensible outcome and one that I believe has the potential to damage the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

Fix my mistakes. CMD (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Utqiaġvik, Alaska move discussion

Hello Amakuru. You seem to have closed this discussion out of process and against the emerging consensus. I would like you to undo your action and allow the discussion to reach a natural conclusion. 28bytes (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the whole discussion was out of process - since the original move was done as a WP:BOLD, a simple request at WP:RMTR was all that was needed to revert it. Most likely the proposer of the RM didn't realise this, and since it was also requested at RMTR, and the discussion hadn't been going very long, it's best to avoid confusion by making the move back to the long term title. I see someone has already started a fresh move request at Talk:Barrow, Alaska#Requested move 30 January 2017 so please feel free to join the discussion there.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamlingay Cinques Common move

I see you deleted my request at [4] to move Gamlingay Cinques Common to Gamlingay Cinques with the comment "discuss 1". Does this mean that I need to follow the instructions for creating a requested move on the article talk page? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dudley Miles: I've already initiated a discussion on this at Talk:Gamlingay Cinques Common, so just feel free to go and contribute there. The main reason I didn't carry it out immediately is that the name Gamlingay Cinques also refers to a village, which is the reason for the redirect. And also the common usually does have "common" on the end. But if I'm wrong about that, please say. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented at teh talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak titles

Not sure why you're going against WP:MOS (MOS:DATEFORMAT, MOS:COMMA) on the basis of an old move discussion. A more recent discussion from last month showed agreement that we should have the second comma. However, I would also request you avoid making mass-moves in a debate you're involved in (ex: you were the only commenter in opposition to the two-comma titles) before concrete consensus is established. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: I'm simply reverting a mass move that was done in November, under the radar, against all previous RMs on the two-comma issue, for tornadoes, metro areas and other topics. There seems to be a small core of editors trying to bludgeon double commas through across the Wiki, even though we debated the issue just in December, at the Columbus mayoral election, with a clear consensus for one comma versions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Amakuru, this behaviour is beyond the pale, and well below the exceptions placed upon administrators by the community. I understand that you are not fond of English grammar, but one might consider that one is wrong, given that all English style guides, the MoS, and other editors are telling one that one is making an utter fool of one's self. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the 'Columbus mayoral election' article, or indeed, anywhere else, does not override a community guideline. It seems that the true 'small core of editors' is the one opposed to following standard usage, with you at that core's core. Is this incorrect? RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't insult me, RGloucester. I'm well aware of how grammar works, but the rule you're citing applies to *running text*. It does not apply to titles, which obey different rules. This applies in the wider world as well, not just on Wikipedia. We've had RfCs on this topic, notably over the metro areas, which usually result in no consensus, since it's an area of strong disagreement between editors. So it is not an irrefutable fact that it is wrong to put one comma, rather than two, in a title. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you please cite a major style guide, or indeed, a Wikipedia policy or guideline, that suggests that this rule applies only to 'running text'? I expect you can't, as there are none. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop moving tornado outbreak pages until this discussion reaches a conclusion. You seem to hold the minority opinion that the second comma is not necessary, so citing an old discussion (which itself had only marginal consensus) is inappropriate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Pierce Bush listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barbara Pierce Bush. Since you had some involvement with the Barbara Pierce Bush redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Monday Night Massacre

Howdy Amakuru, hope you're faring well in all your life circumstances! Would you perhaps volunteer to close this elapsed RM, which may need some wisdom and in which I'm too involved to adjudicate? Let me know… — JFG ^talk 08:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In case you read this just now, somebody performed the close in the meantime. Good night! — JFG ^talk 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG thanks, that's good. I did have a read through the discussion, but it seemed quite a tricky decision and I didn't have the time to give it full consideration! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How about this one? Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump#Requested move 2 February 2017 to flex your RM muscles? — JFG ^talk 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I actually had already voted in the discussion there. Seems to have been closed now. Not sure it's the right result though.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no rationale provided by closer even after asking them. I'm taking it to move review. — JFG ^talk 03:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup Valley lines

I can do the post-move cleanups on those if you like. Thanks for the close and moves. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, sure. Thanks, Dicklyon.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Wicker Man#Requested move 13 February 2017

Hello. I wonder whether you can add the rationale for the move. It doesn't have to be long. I did raise an argument, but I wonder whether it helped. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: OK, done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)