User talk:Music1201/Archive 4

Andrew Dice Clay
Hi, you reverted a change I made.

There is no such release called Banned For Life. His 2000 album was called Face Down, Ass Up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.54.210 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review of Talk:Virgin Atlantic Little Red/GA1
Hi Music1201. Thanks for reviewing this nomination, your work is certainly appreciated. I feel as if you haven't given enough information in the review for the article to be improved to GA status. You've mentioned that it isn't broad in it's coverage, but you haven't mentioned what it lacks. Also, length has nothing to do with the GA criteria. Anyway, I pinged you there, but either you missed it or ignored it. I would appreciate it if you went back there and clarified your reasons behind declining the nomination. Thank you,  Omni Flames ( talk ) 09:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Music1201. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A 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 double-redirects, make link corrections where necessary, and follow other relevant post-move cleanup procedures. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. 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! Biblio (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR
Hi Music1201. Thanks for helping to clear out the backlog here! Your moves looked fine, but just letting you know that when you move a page there, you should remove the request, so that we know it's done. Thanks!  Omni Flames ( talk ) 01:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent closes
Hi Music1201

I see you have performed a large number of closes at WP:RM in the last day. Obviously it's great that you're getting involved in that, we always need people to help with clearing the backlog. However, I do think some of your closes are not correct. In particular:
 * Talk:Appropriation (economics), Talk:Cyril VIII Jaha, Talk:Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998), and possibly others, where you've said "Procedural close as no discussion has occured within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved.". That is not the way it works unfortunately. In fact, if you were to treat it as a simple vote, then the situation is 1 support and 0 opposes, which would seem like a good reason to move. What I do, if there's been no discussion, then the simplest thing is to relist it and give the RM another week, in the hope that some discussion is generated. If you do really want to close it, then it's necessary to independently look at the argument yourself, verify that reasoning for the requested move. If it seems valid, then you should close the RM as moved without oppositoin. On the other hand, if the reasoning doesn't seem valid to you, then don't close the RM yourself at all, but simply add an "oppose" vote saying why it is not valid. Closing the move request with no further input is not correct.
 * Talk:Güzelyurt and others like it. This is similar to the above case, except that there is a single oppose vote, which means the tally is 1 support (the nominator) and 1 oppose. Now that could be a no consensus, as you say, but remember we do not count votes in isolation, it is the strength of arguments that are important. Thus it is not sufficient to just close it that way without examining the arguments. Again, relist if you're unsure, and if you are sure, make sure you say exactly why you're closing it that way in the closing summary, having reviewed and analysed each argument in the debate.

There are some you've done correctly, where the consensus is very clear, such as Talk:Timothy Scott (actor, died 1995) and Talk:Myra Taylor (singer), which is great. But could I please request you to revisit the ones above and any others like it, and either reopen and relist them, or look carefully at the arguments and give a more considered reason for the particular close.

If you're interested in learning how these things work, I'd also recommend reviewing lots of closes that have been done in the past, to really get a feel for the accepted standards for how these things work, and make sure you're familiar with the WP:RMCI instructions. That's what I did before I began doing lots of closes, and it worked well! Thanks, and good luck, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * — Thanks for the help, I will be sure to more closely examine consensus when closing. &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Music1201. Regarding your recent close of the RM at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism § Requested move 25 May 2016: The result was 3 policy-based votes in support of the move, plus the policy-based nomination, against 3 opposing votes. One of these was entirely an ad hominem attack on me without reference to policy or the nomination itself, and as such cannot be counted. Another completely disregarded WP:AND without even really addressing it, and made the ridiculous interpretation of "in the Catholic Church" as meaning "among Catholic priests". Only one was substantive, but even this one made a flawed and not-policy-based argument. That leaves 4 policy-based votes against 1. I would ask you to please reconsider this "no consensus" closing. Thank you. (Full disclosure: I'm the nominator.)  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 09:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) I have no particular opinion on this matter, but I just wanted to point out that the supporting arguments weren't all that convincing either. One of them didn't cite any relevant policies or guidelines, and two of the others were just "per WP:CONSISTENCY" without much else.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 09:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Omni Flames. I understand your point, but at least WP:CONSISTENCY is 1) a policy and 2) not merely an attack ad hominem.  It's also pretty self-explanatory as an argument.  If you're referring to Cúchullain's vote as not referencing policy, he/she did reference WP:PRECISE, just without the wikilink.  Thanks.   Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 09:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The oppose !votes were stronger in my opinion because the oppose !voters left a logical reasoning on why the article should stay at it's current name. While the support !votes referenced policy, they did not explain anything after that. With the oppose !votes being stronger in general, someone else would probably close this one as "not moved", so I think that no consensus was a valid close. &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:Biblioworm
Please see User_talk:Biblioworm regarding certain move operations you have recently taken. — xaosflux  Talk 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do *not* use "suppress redirect" option when making moves until this is resolved. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisting at RM
Just a heads up that generally at RM if a proposal makes its way through to the backlog without anyone opposing and the argument is fairly sound we just move it as unopposed rather than relisting. I realise this is different to how most of the XfD processes handle it (probably because page moves are much more easily reversed than deletions). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pulse (nightclub)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pulse (nightclub). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brindleyplace tram stop (2nd nomination)
Hi, would you please consider reopening Articles for deletion/Brindleyplace tram stop (2nd nomination)? You closed it as "Keep", but the three keep !votes are


 * "Keep. The notability of tram stops has already been established." which is false, no automatic notability for tram stops exists
 * "Keep have come across some third party cites, will add in due course" which is an empty, unverifiable claim to notability
 * "Keep Victoria Square tram stop and Centenary Square tram stop." where the source for these two was a primary source, which again doesn't give any notability.

The remainder were two merge votes (and a merge vote for the other stations in the third keep above), and my delete. If you don't do a headcount but look at strength of vote (which is what a closer must do), then the close should clearly have been a "merge" (or a no consensus, or a relist), never a "keep". Fram (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate it. Fram (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hi Music1201, I note that the article Laura Glitsos - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Glitsos - has been put as start class. This means that it is in the public space but just needs more work, is that correct? THanks Nyxnissia (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Start-Class. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK understood, will continue to add to it. Thanks Nyxnissia (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:OS X - Reopen and relist?
Could you please reopen and relist Talk:OS X? Yes, consensus was not clear, but it was never relisted to allow consensus to have a chance to become clearer. (For reference, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * RMs run for 7 days. Relisting only occurs if no discussion has occurred in those 7 days. &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall someone else brought up a similar issue regarding your move closes on your talk page in the past. Long story short, if you will not relist it, I will bring the move discussion up at WP:MRV. Steel1943  (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to move the article. If you disagree, go ahead and list at WP:MRV. &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of there not being consensus; it's a matter of the fact that the discussion was not relisted when there wasn't. (You did something similar at Talk:Drake (rapper), another close that should have been relisted instead.) Anyways, I just reviewed Talk:OS X, and I think I'll hold off on that WP:MRV. Turns out that someone else decided to fork the move discussion into an "unofficial" move discussion about a week ago. Though I honestly think that the discussion you closed should have been relisted instead of closed (considering Requested moves; it is customary for discussions with no clear consensus to be relisted at least once to help create clearer consensus), the discussion fork that was started at Talk:OS X has essentially disrupted the helpfulness of relisting the discussion you closed. Steel1943  (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyways, what I'm trying to relay to you is that both of the aforementioned discussions you closed ended up being figuratively "relisted" by other editors, in my opinion because there wasn't ample time provided to those discussions to convince other editors that the consensus will never become clearer. I close RMs from time-to-time myself, and I can tell you from experience that in 9/10 cases, closing discussions to "no consensus" without at least one relist ends up with a new discussion starting (usually WP:RM but sometimes WP:RFD) or the move request going to WP:MRV with the argument that it should have been relisted due to not enough time being given to the discussion to allow consensus the chance to become clearer. If 2–3 weeks pass since the start of the discussion and it still doesn't become clearer, then it is almost completely clear at that point that it never will, making for there to be almost no chance that a new discussion will start again ... but in that case, if it did, most editors who participate in the new discussion will most likely vote "speedy close". Steel1943  (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:14:32, 26 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CityGirl2
I'm stunned that the article was declined. I asked for help, chatted with the original reviewer, followed all directions, was complimented on my references, yet you don't see the validity. Quite frankly, there is only one reference that can be directly linked to the subject of the article (a news item from their website). I purposefully searched tirelessly for references that were NOT from their website alone. I used two wikipedia articles as guides - Open Voting Consortium, and Open Source Initiative - the latter has 22 references, 18 of which are from their website. Please help me understand how using a peer-reviewed journal, world renowned newspapers, and City/County departments can be considered unreliable or unverifiable. Thank you for your time. CityGirl2 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CityGirl2 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:17:20, 26 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CityGirl2
Hello - wondering if you can respond to my inquiry. Only one of my references is connected to the subject's website, the rest are journals, well-respected newspapers and media. I followed all directions given from help desk assistance and the prior reviewer, who referred to my references as "excellent". Thanks again for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CityGirl2 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are very good and references are not an issue with this draft because several third-party sources have been listed. The problem now is that the draft has a promotional tone and needs to have a neutral point of view. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

03:10:09, 26 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2
Thanks for the reply. The only major thing I changed from my first submission was the addition of the "Overview" section, since the first reviewer said the issue was notability and significant coverage. Since this is a Presidential election year, the addition of this information addressed that initial comment/issue. My writing style's intent in this article is not to debate or convince, but to inform. I cite facts, not opinions. I'm not interested in advertising anything. I have friends who work for Wikimedia Foundation and respect the platform immensely. Is there anything specific you can suggest I do so that it qualifies for resubmission? Many thanks for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

04:53:50, 26 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2
Hi there - I changed some wording to have a more neutral tone, and added some information that is more balanced (i.e. not favouring one side over another). Would you kindly look it over and let me know if I'm on the right track? Many thanks for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Maps's move
Hello, You've moved my maps to the commons but made it wrongly (File:Dzama river basin on the Shida Kartli map.svg; File:East Prone river basin on the Shida Kartli map.svg) so please be more careful or don't move anymore and I'll ask others. Thanks -- g. balaxaZe   ★  13:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

deletionFinder
Hi Music1201. Thanks for doing NPP! Further to José Rafael Cordero Sánchez, the 288th known attempt to write about himself José makes cross-wiki cf. the centralized LTA file on Dutch Wikipedia, let me introduce you to a script that is an invaluable time-saver at NPP: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js. It checks to see if a page has been previously deleted or discussed at AfD, and if it has, deletionFinder.js provides links to the deletion log and/or AfDs to the right of the article title. Install it by adding the following to your common.js or your skin script file:, save and bypass your browser cache. For an example go to Emil Nielsen where, to the right of the article title, you see the blue prev dels and prev AfDs links when the script has been been loaded. Regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Scream Street (TV series)
Hello, You are incorrect about Scream Street (TV series) not being something that really exists. The show DOES exist and the article now contains sources to prove it. Please do not wrongly accuse me of making a page about something fake again.

Thank you, Pug05 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc
I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input. What's in your palette?  Paine  16:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)