User talk:Feminist/Archive 12

Into You (Ariana Grande song)
Hi SSTflyer. I've just removed the DYK nomination for Into You (Ariana Grande song), which hadn't been completed. You added to the DYK nominations page, without the creation of a nomination. If you do want to renominate, you should still be within the 1 week time scale WormTT(talk) 08:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HTC First
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HTC First you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Note of encouragement
Hey SSTflyer, I noticed you haven't edited since the List of people named x incident happened. I've been checking your contributions for the last few days in the hope that you'd resume editing again. I completely understand that you'd want to take a Wikibreak, but whenever you're ready to return, please do so because you are a valuable member of this community. Don't let one mistake define you, there are millions of other ways to help out this project that don't involve creating thousands of pointless redirects. I've been really impressed with the breadth of your contributions, and it would be a shame to lose someone as instrumental as yourself. Thank you for your contributions to this project and I hope to hear from you soon. Best, -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HTC First
The article HTC First you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HTC First for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HTC First
The article HTC First you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HTC First for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Azteca Records (California)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Azteca Records (California). 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Lew Childe
IMO that should have closed Keep, just as the previous AfD for that article closed keep under the exact same circumstances. -- Green  C  17:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for a rationale why you gave weight to the Delete votes which asserted (without reason) multiple peer reviewed sources are unreliable. -- Green  C  17:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, their arguments may be incorrect, but there are not enough "keep" votes to call this clear consensus. SST flyer 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Strategy
Hi, Can you please start a discussion about that link before readding it? I see what you're getting at, but aiming at the entire country seems much too broad to be useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I am going to give you a suggestion for a bot task
Hi SST,

Thank you very much for your extreme courtesy and due diligence in asking for consensus before we decide whether to run this bot task of yours for events, deaths and births (I am deliberately not linking because I don't kinda wanna WP:OVERLINK to your talk page otherwise we end up in discussions in four dozen places as has happened to me with Neelix redirects and that is not helpful to anyone). I am not sure of its utility, am pretty neutral about it, and I have left both at WP:RFD and on the bot talk page a couple of suggestions that essentially narrow the redirects that are going to be created only to those things that we do have actual information about. But I have no problem in principle with it.

Anyway, my suggestion is this, some time ago I was going through every redirect we have like 30/5 and so on to see where they went. I got fed up at the end of April. Lots go to specific things because something will have been called "30/5" a tank or whatever and some are just going to May 30. There is kinda no order in these so I think it's a bit WP:SURPRISE. Like with "607" i just plucked that one at random I have no idea where it goes (I'll tell you once I post this) but that's kinda the point there's no predictability with these redirects (or date order with 5/30 and so on). I think most should be deleted but in any case a bot not to change them but to list them with their targets so we have a comprehensive list of where all our month-day and day-month ones go would I think be very useful just as a backroom list for easy reference. There are also spaced and hyphenated variants for many such as 30-5 and 5-30. As I say I just plucked that day at random as a not particularly remarkable day, you know not New Year's Day or Lady Day or anything like that, so where they all go I have no idea I was just giving an example. What do you think? Could you do that? I'm a software engineer but never done any "programming" at WP beyond templates. So I can kinda give you a more specific algorithm for how the bot should make such a list but am not interested in actually botching the code together. Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone has already done it. Obviously things like 9/11 are thus called but there are I think a lot lurking around that are essentially meaningless. Try some more 9/14 9/12 12/9 4/4. The thing is that especially with British and American date order being reversed they are kinda meaningless or at least not WP:WORLDWIDE even as dates (For example my birthday is 12 April which in Britain would be written 12/04 but in America 4/12 and indeed I have American paperwork where I was born on 4 December apparently. WP seems to prefer, for things like May 30, that way of writing it with redirects for things like 30 May, and that is fine, to me with this consistency is important because otherwise it's a WP:SURPRISE if say 1 December was an article and December 1 was a redirect, there's no way someone looking for information can try to predict it, however considering that articles are usually treated rather individually rather than as a series and so on it is very hard to argue for any particular one that a redirect should be reversed). Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or rather it doesn't matter for search but it tends to lead to a big inconsistency in articles, WP:MOSNUM and all that notwithstanding, people whack in something, it "works" and don't tend to think whether it would be WP:WORLDWIDE (which is why I tend to write dates out in full). What do you think? Would it be worth a bot run if it's not to tricky to sellotape the code together? Maybe do it in reverse, go over the 4 Decembers and so on and see what redirects link to it? Just a thought that maybe would interest you. Have a think about it. Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, SSTflyer. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASSTflyer granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sorcha Faal reports
I have read through the discussion numerous times, and cannot find any consensus. That was pretty clearly a "non-consensus" close from where I sit. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Thanks, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is consensus that the article is not a BLP. Secondly, out of the five participants in the RM, you are the only participant who opposes any move. There is rough consensus that the current title is unsuitable, and "Sorcha Faal reports" as the new title has received more supports than the domain name (3-1 among editors supporting a move). SST flyer 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess David Gerard didn't count? Also, as both David and I pointed out "Sorcha Faal Reports" is not actually used anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Finally, consensus is not a vote. Counting heads isn't how this is supposed to work. If the discussion stalled with no-one involved taking action, then it seems pretty clear that everyone was at least marginally fine with no action being taken. Contrast that with the taking of action, which generated immediate protest. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted part of your edit
Hey SST, I took out the dead link templates you added because they're not dead, you just have to have a subscription. :-) Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot request
Your bot task has been approved for trial, please see Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1. — xaosflux  Talk 13:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your bot trial has been extended, please see Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1. — xaosflux  Talk 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Double redirect and AfD
When you closed the AfD for State decoration, you made it into a double redirect. That has finally been fixed by RussBot to redirect directly to Order (honour). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Recent close of AfD
Hi, I saw that you recently closed this AfD. I believe this needs more discussion. There is also possible COI editing and socking going on. It is best if this is reopened and relisted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your non-admin closure of Death of Prince and have discussed it on DRV. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman
Hi SSTflyer; I'm sorry if this is a sore point, and I certainly don't mean to challenge your motives or judgement, but can I respectfully suggest that you self-revert? According to Deletion process, a guideline, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins". I'd say that this was both a close call and (whatever the result!) a controversial decision, meaning that it's probably not an ideal candidate for a non-admin closure. (To be clear, I'm fairly happy with the result, as the lack of consensus has defaulted to keep, but I'm sure you can understand my worry.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I second the request but for different reasons. First, the discussion has only been open a week, and it seems plausible that further participation may reach a consensus. (I intended to participate, but the deadline got away from me.) More importantly, there's a pending SPI (and a related COIN thread), supported by credible evidence that, if substantiated, would invalidate at least one of the votes. I ask that you rescind your close and relist for further discussion. Thank you. Rebb  ing  18:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have reverted my closure. I do not consider my initial closure to be inaccurate, but due to the SPI and COIN discussions, there should be no harm with leaving it open for longer. SST  flyer  01:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For whatever it's worth, I don't consider your relist as undermining the validity of your initial closure, and I would have made the same request of an administrator on account of the pending investigation.
 * As for closing heavily-discussed AfDs as no consensus after the first week, I think it's important to consider where the heavy traffic came from. In this case, the article creator had made a plea for help at WikiProject Women artists (71 page watchers), which, while permissible, means much of the initial participation came from a particular perspective. (Note the hand-wringing and unsupported accusations of sexism.) In my opinion, leaving such discussions open an extra week or two to attract more neutral attention from the community helps ensure a fair outcome. Cheers. Rebb  ing  02:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm not looking to pick a fight here, but why are people so keen to ignore the guidelines at Deletion process? The indication made in your comment was that if there wasn't the COI noticeboard discussion, you would have stuck with your closure. What's the point of making a distinction between admin closures and non-admin closures if we're going to say that non-admins can make even more controversial closures? It seems to me that if you want to make closures of this sort, you should either seek community consensus to make more permissive the guidelines on non-admin closures or else nominate yourself for admin status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Born in the U.S.A.
I know there are opposes, but why closing it so suddenly? Also, the WP:speedy keep is a deletion guideline. If you don't to reopen the discussion, can you adjust the closing rationale, so your revised rationale makes more sense? --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You yourself answered your own question on why the page should not be moved. Consensus agrees that the page should not be moved. Why contradict yourself? SST  flyer  09:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Black September
I also don't know why you add the link to a deletion guideline. Can you adjust the closing rationale to make more sense? --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 25
Hey SSTflyer, you may be interested in looking at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 25. The redirect you nominated, List of American singers, was nominated there. In 2012, it seems that there was an editor who retargeted most of the person-related redirects in that nomination from WP:XNRs to categories to possibly unrelated/misleading articles. If you have a desire to take action on those, I thought I'd give you the opportunity first since you nominated the redirect that led me to find these issues. (If not, I may nominate certain ones myself for WP:RFD at some point during the next few days.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your bot has been approved please wait until a crat flags it +bot to begin your processing. — xaosflux  Talk 01:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Death of Prince
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death of Prince. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Valoem  talk   contrib  00:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a questioning of the closure, but a request for relisting. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this RM?
Hi, could you please close Talk:Charles_Dodgson_(archdeacon)? I can't because I'm involved in the discussion. The page is no longer protected so you should have no problems. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Truth (Gwen Stefani song)
Can you please revert your closure of this discussion? It only attracted 3 !votes, two of which are from editors who GA reviewed these articles and one of which is from a significant contributor. The discussion should have been relisted, not closed. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 votes are generally considered sufficient for determining consensus, and the consensus is almost unanimous in the discussion. I consider my closure to be appropriate. If you disagree, taking this to WP:DRV is always an option. Thanks, SST  flyer  01:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Gladly: Deletion review/Log/2016 June 12 Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States by date of death
I'm skeptical your choice to close this; outcome not withstanding, non-admins in general are discouraged from closing contentious AFD's. It's best to let admins deal with those and just close non-contentious discussions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been plenty of discussion, and both sides have made valid arguments. I think the lack of consensus is pretty clear. I do not consider my closure to be inaccurate, but I don't mind letting an admin close this. SST  flyer  04:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Very understandable, but re-opening (for now) and letting an admin come along to assess the AFD would definitely be a good choice even if the consensus (or lack thereof) remains the same when they close it. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I closed it as "no consensus" as well - incidentally I didn't check the page history to see this had been done already, so this was a completely independent judgement. I thought there were good arguments on both sides, but neither one really edged ahead. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

100 Mile House Sikh Society
Hello SSTflyer. Relating to your deletion discussion on the 100 Mile House Sikh Society, this article is written by me. I am a Sikh who was born and raised in 100 Mile House, and I lived there for 18 years prior to leaving to pursue higher education. My family roots can be tied back to 100 Mile House as far back as the early 1970's. My father played a significant role in establishing the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalvinder K (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stemoc
Hi. just a quick note -- and a friendly one -- to point out that your close of this was not really a very good one. You did not give a policy reason for the close (WP:SNOW is not policy), and the discussion really didn't qualify for a SNOW close - you should take a look at WP:SNOW as reminder of when it is and isn't applicable. When one side quotes policies, and the other doesn't, the close needs to be made not on the basis of nose-counting, but on the basis of quality of argument. You really should have let it run its course and be closed by an admin - in my opinion, of course. <g>

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I'm not planning on bringing it to WP:DRV, as the issue just isn't that important to me to pursue it further. I bear you no ill will, I just think your close wasn't the best. (And yes, I'm human enough to admit that if I was on the other side of the issue I'd just shrug my shoulders and this note wouldn't exist.) Best, BMK (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ste*e M*cLean saga
Hi. For the context, I'm also a page mover, and I participated in the RM at Talk:Steve McLean. I'm ok with substance of your closure, but why did you leave pages Talk:Steve McLean/Disambiguation and Talk:Steve McLean/Disambiguation/Talk around? Yeah, they sort of preserve some attribution history, but if you are a page mover and properly execute WP:SWAP, there shouldn't be any leftovers like that hanging around, and I really dislike having such orphaned subpages. That whole Steve Mclean business is very messy to untangle, I admit. I (or, even better, you) can fix this by WP:SWAPping those two pages above with the appropriate Talk pages and then db-g6'ing them, but I'm having difficulty locating those "appropriate Talk pages". No such user (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I intentionally moved Steven McLean and its talk page to subpages of Talk:Steve McLean so that editors in the future can see what the disambiguation page used to look like. Otherwise, they can be G6 deleted. SST  flyer  at 13:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh... but anyway, please don't create similar subpages in the future. If you have pages {A, B, C, Talk:A, Talk:B, and Talk:C} that you want to retitle, you can always arrange the moves without creating additional pages, so that all the history is preserved within the original set. In this case, the page seems created out of thin air – that's where history of Talk:Steve McLean/Disambiguation should have ended. Since both histories are pretty trivial, both of those pages could be safely DB-G6'd, but there will probably be more complicated cases in the future. I concede this is all complicated, and I'm not even 100% certain I'm right about the best practice. Should we seek for official guidance somewhere at Help talk:Moving a page or...? No such user (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (chiming in unasked) In situations like this where you are essentially getting rid of a dab in a TWODABS situation I usually move the old dab page to Foo (disambiguation) and then delete it as G6 (unnecessary disambiguation page), assuming there is no need to preserve the history as in this case. This one is further muddied by already existing. I think I would have moved it to  and then changed it back into a redirect to Steven MacLean. I appreciate this is all either difficult or impossible to do without being able to delete, but the practice of preserving pages as talk subpages is largely deprecated in favour of trying to either have them at plausible redirect titles or delete them outright if they're unnecessary. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:New Music (style)
I'd ask you to please undo your close at Talk:New Music (style). It had been listed for a couple of weeks, no one had opposed and the nominator made a reasonable argument in favour. Quoting from RMCI, "Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. This is a contested technical request. One person did oppose, but I don't mind leaving it open for longer. SST  flyer  at 13:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. To be pedantic, no one actually opposed. Phil moved it to a full discussion without any comment, but didn't object to the move. Sometimes at RM/TR people will do that when they don't specifically object to the move, but think it's worthwhile listing for a full week because someone might. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Hi,

Iam new here. I created a page - QuestionPro Inc. But since then the deletion tag was added, then removed, and then added again. Just to be clear (since I have been asked several times) I dono not have any links to this organization whatsoever. I went through their VB article, wanted to know more about the firm and was nearly sure it would be there (given they had a Venturebeat and a Mint_(newspaper) article) but couldn't since the page was not created. Hence I joined (always wanted to but hesitated), created the page and made some small other contributions as most of my free time goes into proving why this page is significant to readers. So basically I wanted your opinion as an admin that what do you feel about this article, and can you give me some suggestions on making it better or do you think that deletion is the only way forward.

Thanks a lot. RR007 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan
I believe the page move from Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan to Catholic Church in Afghanistan was incorrect. There was no strong consensus for the move, and the move introduced more ambiguity and inconsistency than the proposal corrected. The parent article for the series, Religion in Afghanistan uses the "Roman Catholic" convention, as do several templates on the page. The history section for Catholic Church in Afghanistan also discussed the "Nestorian" church (AKA the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East), which is unaffiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, and the article rename adds ambiguity that is difficult to correct without the "Roman" modifier in the title. See WP:Roman Catholic for more information. I would request you review the page move closing for possible reversal. Thank you. --Zfish118⋉talk 20:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Catholic Church in Afghanistan
An editor has asked for a Move review of Catholic Church in Afghanistan. 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.

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

~*~Star Trek Into Darkness~*~
I'm confused why you created this redirect. You participated in the recent RFD regarding these redirects, so you should know where consensus is on the matter. Could you please explain? -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And it looks like you moved it to a completely unrelated title. Don't do that. Now the history of ~*~Star Trek Into Darkness~*~ is in a completly different place, which is inappropriate. Page moving is only for moving to places that are related in some way. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

All those song redirects...
Well, your closes beat me to my comments by literally a few seconds. (Your closes on Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20, specifically this edit, resulted in me having an edit conflict that I could no longer save due to the closes.) Anyways, for the record, here's what I was going to say on all of them:"Keep. It's a valid R from song. Unless the redirect is proven to be ambiguous in name with another subject which currently exists on Wikipedia, no issue here as it directs readers to a topic which this title is a subtopic. (This doesn't apply anymore due to 's comments in the nominations after the discussions were reopened. Steel1943  (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC))"Anyways, I just wanted to say this here in the event that your closes get reopened or sent to WP:DRV... Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You realize the the project is now in conflict with the redirect everything cabal. I am not prepeared to add redirects for every song for every album on my watch list, which is substantial. While WP:POINTy, it's no worse than the nonsense you and have just supported. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: Why did you close these all per WP:SNOW? There was still plenty of room for debate with these; can you re-open these discussions to give the debate a chance to develop? Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I second this request. I would prefer the "keep" decision be enforced through clear consensus, which hasn't been formed yet on any of those discussions, especially considering that they were all open for less than a day. (The discussions should probably all be merged together though for clarity: the nominator is citing the same issue for each.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll third it. SSTflyer, while you're probably right, it's best to let consensus prove that it should be kept. This was a bit premature to close it now. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. SST  flyer  02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review for New York (state)
An editor has asked for a Move review of New York (state). 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.
 * With respect, I think this discussion should have rather been either closed as no consensus or, better yet, relisted. Thanks for your time and effort in closing it, however. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 02:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)