Talk:Orpheum Theatre (Memphis)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved (request withdrawn, and unsupported by anyone in the interim).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Orpheum Theatre (Memphis) → Orpheum Theater (Memphis) – US spelling for US related article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the correct spelling here http://www.orpheum-memphis.com/ on their website. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, nom withdrawn. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose the proposed change. The official name of the subject institution uses the British spelling.  Please do not tamper with it.  Thanks.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC).


 * When Chunk5Darth withdrew his proposal, two entries above, he used this edit summary, directed to me: "Tamper with my comment again and we have a problem".
 * That's an obvious threat although a nonspecific one.
 * That behavior is not only uncivil and juvenile but also absolutely forbidden and unacceptable at the Wikipedia.
 * First, I did not in any way "tamper with [his] comment"; quite to the contrary, I posted my own comment, in which I explained that the official name of the Orpheum Theatre uses the British spelling, which Chunk5Darth could easily have learned by himself if he had taken the trouble to check it and verify it before proposing such a significant move.
 * Second, the other user's behavior does not represent a proper and acceptable way to discuss a difference between users.
 * Third, the making of such a threat is rude, ugly, impudent, disrespectful, and confrontational.
 * As we all know, behavior has consequences.
 * If Chunk5Darth persists in the same mode of behavior, one of the consequences may be a blocking of him from further participation here.
 * After composing the material just above but before posting it, I checked the edit history for this talk page, and I found something curious and confusing:
 * At 14:05 Z, when I posted my opposing vote, above, there was visible no other note, not by Chunk5Darth or anyone else, after the one by Secondarywaltz (at 04:54 Z).
 * Further, at that same time my watchlist did not show any other posting after that same one by Secondarywaltz.
 * When I posted my opposing vote, I did not delete anything whatever.
 * However, the edit history now makes it appear that I deleted a note by Chunk5Darth (one which he ostensibly posted at 06:49 Z).
 * Of course, I'm at a loss to explain or understand what the Wikipedia computer did during that time, but it appears to me that it did indeed make a burp of one sort or another.
 * Predictably, if Chunk5Darth's withdrawal of 06:49 Z had been visible at 14:05 Z, then I would not have felt a need to cast an opposing vote, and I would not have done so.
 * Still, though, despite the burp by the Wikipedia computer, the snarky threat by Chunk5Darth is quite inappropriate.
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

In this edit, "Doc" removed my withdrawal and fueled the discussion by making it seem more controversial than it is. I suggested that if that type of behavior persists, I would be forced to involve a third party, per WP:TPO. The "Doc"'s reaction was to fuel the conversation even further by making a prolonged personal attack. I suggest this silliness be closed so that we all can get on with our lives. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.