User talk:Sceptre

Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Ted Edwards  20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

RM of 90377 Sedna
Hello ,

Thanks for taking the time to assess the RM of 90377 Sedna. Please don't forget to move back Quaoar. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sceptre, Please could you reopen and relist the RM? There wasn't that much participation, !votes were pretty split and I think there was a lot more to be discussed about the matter, warranting a relist. I would certainly vote in favour of the move, as the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is not "90377 Sedna" as far as I can see. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's a larger discussion over whether Sedna is definitively a dwarf planet or not going on at the talk page, and I didn't want to tip the scales one way or the other with the closure. The predominant view in the RM was against moving, so I could've closed it as "not moved", but "no consensus to change how we've done stuff, therefore we stick with the status quo ante" is also a valid closure, and FWIW, I don't think another few days of discussion would've created a consensus. Sceptre (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus close
Hi, I must take issue with the recent close. It states:

the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced when what the closer actually said was

While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number.....my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be

Furthermore, the review closure also stated

Please do note that the community takes issue with UtherSRG's method, not his outcome. It will be in order for someone else to re-close this requested move as move if that is their assessment of the consensus

Afaics, the current close amounts to a vote count that takes no account of the quality of the arguments in support of either the original or the proposed title, the "better understanding", I request that you take another look.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At the same time, I cannot create a consensus where there clearly is none. Nothing happened in the RM after it was re-opened. At the MRV, overturning to no consensus was supported by a good proportion of people, and I agree with them. Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with, Sceptre, because far too many editors agreed that the first closure, which did find a consensus to move, was correct. You say you did not see a consensus, but you don't say why? The support args far outweighed the oppose args, which is the main reason the first closure's review ended in "vacate" rather than in "overturn to no consensus". Please reassess the arguments to find what we say here is true. That article needs to be renamed as proposed.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I noted at the MRV that there was consensus to close, just that the previous closer gave a spurious reason for seeing consensus there. Closure is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, not by counting heads, and in this case there was strong evidence by those in support, invoking the WP:NPOV policy, that the term "expulsion and flight" is better and more neutral wording than the status quo. I wish I'd cast another "support" !vote at the discussion now, because the arguments to move were vastly more persuasive and rooted in evidence than those in opposition, and I didn't really expect a no-consensus closure after all that had been said at the MRV, it was simply that a more clear close was required than that previously given. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus move
Your close doesnt seem to address the merits of the arguments at all, and ask that you reconsider by either relisting (it had only been relisted for three days prior to your close) or address the merits of the arguments. When one group provides sources and the other side just says POV that should not result in no consensus.  nableezy  - 14:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this has already been requested, if you are going to refuse can you say so in order to open a new move review?  nableezy  - 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey all. Having a second look at the RM, although the arguments to move were more detailed than those opposing the move, I still cannot create a consensus where there is none. I'm sympathetic to the argument, and personally I believe the people arguing in favour of a move are right. But as a closer, my role is to evaluate the discussion, and I cannot see a consensus either way. Nor was it likely that a consensus was going to develop; there was no participation in the RM after it was reopened. In such circumstances, I can't do anything but close as "no consensus". Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can, you can not close a move that was relisted for 3 days, especially when experienced closers and admins are telling you that you are incorrect in your reading of the discussion and of "consensus". But fine, Ill open a move review.  nableezy  - 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Move review for 1948 Palestinian exodus
An editor has asked for a Move review of 1948 Palestinian exodus. 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.  nableezy  - 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Maori Party RM
Hi,

I request that you reopen and relist your recent closure of this RM. To close this RM based on counting !votes is inappropriate. Consensus is not based on just counting the number of heads.

In addition, in my opinion your closing statement does not address the arguments raised during the RM. Did you consider WP:CRITERIA-based arguments? Did you consider that the party does not use one name over the other on it's website, when at least three support !votes stated that they do? -Spekkios (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did consider WP:CRITERIA, and found arguments for "Māori Party" and "Te Pāti Maori" to be relatively equal in weight. At such a point, I have to fall back on the direction of the discussion, which was clearly in favour of the move. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the arguments are relatively equal in weight, that would imply a "no consensus" closure instead of a "move" closure. How does the discussion "direction" or the number of !votes matter if the policy based arguments are equal in weight? --Spekkios (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ==Move review for Te Pāti Māori==
 * An editor has asked for a Move review of Te Pāti Māori. 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. Spekkios (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Introducing arguments in closures
Hi, um, slightly awkward to pile on like this, but I don’t actually have any issue with the of your closure. Rather I came to advise on a less central detail: you should avoid introducing new arguments in your closures. In this case, the point about NZ English being quick to adopt Māori vocab seems to come out of nowhere and doesn’t reflect the discussion. I think a better summary would have mentioned something like “proponents emphasised that the party refers to itself as te Pāti Māori (in English)”, which seems to be one of two dominant arguments (along with commonness). — HTGS (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, you're right about the wording. I didn't think the comment came out of nowhere; there is a propensity in NZ-related RMs for people less familiar with NZEng to treat Māori vocabulary as "not English enough", which I felt was being introduced in this RM. But yes, the key point is that the use in English, not the use of English (see also also: Senedd), for which I was satisfied "Te Pāti Māori" was common enough to be a COMMONNAME. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Day of reckoning
I don't notice any objection to moving that to. I think that could have been the outcome, rather than "no consensus". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should no consensus mean reverting to previous title?
I see you recently closed a requested move as no consensus. I agree there wasn't any consensus. Should this mean that the article should revert back to its previous long-term and stable title? the article was called "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" from 2008 to May 2022, when it was moved after this discussion. But this discussion doesn't seem to have enough participation to constitute consensus (2 supports and 1 oppose). This rationale was also mentioned by. VR talk 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, move requests don't need to have a certain magnitude of participation for them to be regarded as legitimate (vide WP:RMNOMIN), as decisions are made by a consensus process, which factors in the policy-based reasoning of participants, and not vote-counting; and an absence of objection does contribute to the consensus too. As someone who participated in the discussion, I find the above bid to solicit a move indirectly without notifying the editors on the talk page to be quite discourteous inasmuch as the magnitude to which it was vehemently opposed (being eloquent of disagreement) by a laundry list of long-term contributors (including and ), who argued against the move on policy grounds, in contrast to the support it garnered from a considerable number of SPAs, block-evading socks, and topic banned users who trivialized the consensus process by construing the discussion to be some sort of a votestacking contest; not to mention the fact that the title had been stable for about half a year until a block-evading IP began, and thereupon tainted the RM with more socks. In my view, the foregoing quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a revert back to old title. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * might have handled this differently; however, the outcome in this case is a reasonable one. And this due to ML's argument above for a set new consensus being in place long enough to matter. And I trust Andrewa's and Amakuru's opinions beyond words. So in the end there's a good possibility I would have closed the same way Sceptre did.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On an incidental note, Sceptre, and I say this with all due respect for your prior experience in evaluating consensus-building discussions, and having elucidated the context above, I am curious to understand how you construed the discussion to be resulting in a no consensus. The chief argument of the chief proponent of the move (also the OP arguing for the restoration of old title above) was that the existing title adverted to more than a solitary subject, which was debunked by a reference to WP: PRIMARY TOPIC categorically by at least three editors (who had to presuppose that this was the case in the first place in view of disagreement on this contention). Amakuru, who chimed in late into the discussion and who would have been on the mark and justified in closing the discussion to boot, encapsulated his recapitulation of the discussion as: Likewise, Andrewa reiterated the underlying essence of his argument, when he proffered: .. If that term is ambiguous and the current article is not the Primary Topic (about which I am not convinced), should it be a DAB? Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC). I too had recapitulated the essence of my argument a day before your closure. In consequence, I don't think putting these quality arguments grounded in policies upon the same footing as those advanced by proponents of the move (whose chief reasoning was debunked, with the residual taking the form of rehash, primarily from socks and SPAs) was justified or meticulous. I did give it a food for thought before voicing my dissent, because a few months down the road this is likely to become an issue again with socks crawling out of the woodwork all over once again, and some of us may not be around (as much) on Wikipedia for it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for this thoughtful response, and that would be my viewpoint as well. There are two separate issues here, firstly whether the May RM was sufficient to establish a "new status quo" to be the baseline default in the event of a subsequent "no consensus", and secondly whether the close of no consensus was itself valid. On the first, I'd say it's borderline; if the RM was very recent, I'd probably include its findings in and amongst the !votes for the second RM; but 6+ months, for an RM which was conclusively decided (i.e. not just moved without discussion) is getting to the point where it should be binding. So (with my obviously biased hat on) I wouldn't fault Sceptre for not moving back to the original name. On the second issue, I agree that it definitely should have been a "consensus against moving" close, when evaluating through the strength of argument, WP policy and evidence. Furthermore, in a contentious and close RM such as this, I would expect a summary from the closer as to why they've come to the conclusion they have... not just a single-line "no consensus"... as indeed was the case at the Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus RM mentioned in the sections above and now at move review. WP:CONSENSUS is formed by viewing !votes through the lens of policy, and both supporters and opposers need to know why a closer reached the conclusion they did. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * this is a rehash of the argument in made during the RM, but you are confusing two different topics here. Just because a title has a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC doesn't mean that that topic unambiguously refers to only that primary topic. A great example is given in policy itself, at WP:COMMONNAME, and that is Heart attack. The Primary topic of Heart attack, and the page it redirects to, is Myocardial Infarction. However, heart attack can also refer to cardiac arrest. VR talk 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Vice regent, yeah, thanks for recollecting that you conceded to Amakuru on their primary topic contention in the discussion . This consensus then should have informed Sceptre's close, for the policy left no room for doubt that the title had to reflect the primary topic (as discerned by common usage in English RS). The guidline is perspicuous: if an expression has a primary topic, then that is what it leads to, per its dictates. This is not to say that its application is ubiquitous: as with any other MOS, exceptions do exist; and medicine domain embodies the niche where the nomenclature is conditioned by the scientific or recognised medical name commonly occuring in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or an historical eponym that has been superseded" (vide WP:NCMED). This is why the colloquial term, Heart attack, redirects to MI, despite being the primary topic. However, such exceptions do not impeach the rule itself; the latter is the established norm; whereas the former, a narrowly carved out exception to suffice the specific needs of a niche community. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you're mistaken about Primarytopic. You seem to implying that if a title X has a primary topic Y, then our article on Y must necessarily be called X. But that's not true. The only thing the primary topic implies is that X must point to the article Y, whatever it is called. In fact, we have a whole template (Template:Redirect) that deals with such cases. Besides the "heart attack" example above, other examples include:
 * The primary topic for "Soccer" is Association football. And "soccer" has 647M google hits, vs only 10M hits for "Association Football", yet we pick the less common name.
 * The primary topic for "Western Allies" (2.3M hits) is Allies of World War II (0.2M hits), but we avoid the title that is ambiguous.
 * The primary topic for "Midwest" (171M hits) is Midwestern United States (only 1.2M hits), but again we avoid the ambiguous title. I could go on and on with dozens more examples.
 * The primary topic for "Pakistani Taliban" is indeed "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". In this case too, we should avoided the ambiguous name even if it gave somewhat more google hits.
 * Likewise many times during the discussion I argued that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" was more precise, because scholarly sources used the term "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to groups/individuals that were not TTP, for example splinter groups from TTP, groups similar to the TTP but never a part of it, as well as Pakistani members of the (Afghan) Taliban. VR talk 00:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merely rehashing that some expression is ambiguous doesn't cut it for an argument where you have acknowledged that there is a primary topic. Matters end right there for all intents and purposes. The redirects embody an exception scenario to the aforesaid guideline, and they occur when any of the conditions set forth in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT hold good, which wasn't remotely the case with this article; indeed, it was no one's argument, forget an effort that convinced others. The results were lopsided and weighed in favour of the existing title. Your filibustering to derail the efforts to solicit Sceptre's construction of a "no consensus" (which didn't account for the strong policy and evidence based reasoning in oppose) is getting to the point of being unconstructive; this isn't a new RM, where you rehash and even dwell on the issue anew with previously unmentioned examples; desist, please. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorbonne
Please fix the many incoming links to this dab page, which previously pointed to the page now at "(building)". Thanks. Pam D  05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Ted Edwards  03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sceptre!


Happy New Year! Sceptre, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Prinz von Preussen RM
Hello!

I was curious to know why you closed the recent RM on Franz Willem Prinz von Preussen in favor of the move? The majority (albeit 7-6, by my count) were opposed to the move. Further, the official website of the princes of Prussia refers to "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" not the current article title. I would suggest revisiting this RM, as it does not even seem reliable english sources use the title. I would also argue the discouragement of hypothetical titles in WP:NCROY doesn't apply because reliable sources do in fact use the title. Here are some:   Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)
I have nominated Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Mergers
Hello @Sceptre!

I had never proposed mergers until recently, and most of my proposals haven't been gaining much traction. I would appreciate your insight on these 3 proposals of mine: 1, 2, 3 Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Mooonswimmer 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects to the proposal after a decent amount of time, just feel free to do the merge yourself. :) Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus close
Why would you close this when you were involved with a previous near-identical close that was challenged and which came up with no consensus on the quality of your close? Part of the complaint was that you did a vote count and didn't expand on the arguments or policy. Now you have closed an almost identical RM (with yourself now arguably involved in the overall imbroglio) and performed what appears to be another vote count without any mention of the arguments or policy, and in part referred to the previous close with which you were involved. In the most unflattering light, this close could even be interpreted as you returning with the specific intent of reiterating your own previous, challenged verdict to make a point. I would strongly suggest that you re-open and leave it to a closer that is more obviously uninvolved. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED explicitly does not apply to actions taken in a purely administrative role. As I've said, if there was truly a consensus to move the article, I would be perfectly happy to do so. But if anything about the past six months of discussion over three extended RM periods and two MRV periods has shown, it's not only that there isn't a consensus, but also that there won't be a consensus forthcoming. If you disagree, you can go for a third move review of this RM, but honestly, I think we'd all be better off if we let the matter rest for a while. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the letter of the law, your involvement at this stage was unwise to the say the least given your past involvement in a similar case and the subsequent contention. In addition, the combined lack of policy/argument reflection and similarly off-topic reflections on past closes used to justify the close (again) was of course almost guaranteed to raise recurring questions. If you don't have the energy to engage fully with a subject of this nature, don't engage with it. The handling of contentious topic discussions is often best left to administrators. I think you closing this almost guarantees another move review, but if that is an outcome you are happy with, so be it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd close, and you emphatically do not have authority to impose a moratorium.  nableezy  - 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Move_review/Log/2023_February  nableezy  - 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2023
Thank you for undoing my edits. Yes, at the article Royal Rumble (2023), WWE officially lists Rhea Ripley as staying in the women's Royal Rumble match 1 second longer than Liv Morgan, although other sources say that the match ended as soon as Morgan was eliminated, and Ripley and Morgan set the record. If you have further issues, please discuss it in the article's talk page. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent move
Hi there,

How did you determine that the consensus for this move was not the proposed title? Spekkios (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 's argument was the most persuasive, both to me and other editors in the discussion. When it comes to NZEng, there's no bright line to go to for the English, Māori, or dual names and it ultimately comes down to which has the most evidence to go with. In this case, based mostly on HTGS's comment, I determined it was the Māori one. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How are you determining that the argument presented by HTGS was persuasive to other editors? Unless I am mistaken, no other editors are referencing their argument. --Spekkios (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't clarified further, please see here. --Spekkios (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at WikiProject Ukraine
Regarding the close at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine. The statement about the decision completely ignores the important point about the difference between the names in article titles and parenthetic disambiguation strings, as well as the cited precedent, citing examples that are not analogies for this at all (on top of that, Istanbul and Constantinople are completely different names, not just a spelling variation in a city name that hasn’t changed in over a millennium). It seems a completely unsatisfactory rationale, as in it gives no indication that you read the proposal or considered the points made in it.source] ]] —Michael Z. 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * although Constantinople may arguably be or not be an adequate comparison, I believe that Calcutta/Kolkata is; they’re both changes in (Western) English orthography to the local orthography, where the local orthography is more common. However, it’s not always the case that the change is consistent when talking retrospectively; although "Mumbai" is almost universally used these days, usage is split on the 1993 Bombay bombings. Regardless, there isn’t a consensus for a move anyway, and the retrospectivity (or lack thereof) of COMMONNAME was brought up in the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s all academic because the change was to the parenthetic disambiguation text, not the name. COMMONNAME doesn’t apply to disambiguation text.
 * WP:PRECISION says to use the least-precise version sufficient to disambiguate. The main-article-title spelling of the city is good enough, and there’s no point in narrowing it to a historical spelling that is only used in restricted contexts.
 * WP:TITLEDAB reinforces the idea: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” The examples there make it clear to use the broadest term possible, not one that applies only in a specific context, like a historical one.
 * And WP:CONSISTENCY is violated, because the new decision conflicts with the precedent cited in the proposal: the consensus move of a similar article to Folkstsaytung (Kyiv).
 * And there is no consensus to use the dated spelling Kharkov in historical contexts.
 * It’s not the end of the world if these are not moved, but it seems to be contrary to best practices. I urge you to reconsider the decision or even reopen it to get more input, but I’ve had my say and I won’t belabour it further if you choose not to. Thanks for closing the RM anyway. Cheers. —Michael Z. 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Maize -> Corn RM
Thanks for taking the time to read that novel. I'd just like to know what arguments you found most compelling, so I can understand more about Wikipedia guidelines.

Your reasoning on the talk page itself is that the common name may change from Maize to Corn, but it hasn't yet, similar to Iroquois → Haudenosaunee. However, the arguments used to show that Iroquois is still the most commonly used name is the exact sort used to show why Corn is the most commonly used name. Most relevantly, even in scientific and scholarly papers Maize is used about 1/3rd as much as Corn, as shown in the RM.

Could you explain the differences between the two situations? Without knowing more about your point of view, one could look at these two examples and assume that the default is 'no consensus' when a tough decision needs to be made. OuroCat (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.  nableezy  - 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RM closure
Hello, Sceptre. Regarding your closure at Aguascalientes City, I notice you wrote that "documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary" only for Chihuahua City, which you exempted... but an even greater volume of documentary evidence was provided for Oaxaca City, which you didn't. Was that intentional, and if so could you share the rationale? Thanks for any clarification. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that a lot of evidence was introduced for Queretaro City, as well. Red  Slash  17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was completely unintentional, but from looking further at the discussion, I can see there's no reason to not apply that exemption for Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'll happily reverse those moves and amend my closure in those cases. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Chihuahua City, Oaxaca City, and Querétaro City were the only ones actually tested for evidence of common usage; that they all showed it suggests the others are likely the same. I feel like it would've been preferable for the nominator to investigate this before making the bulk proposal, but it sounds like individual RMs or a second bulk RM will be needed for these now. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't test all the other ones, because it would have been exhausting, but I think you probably would've found the same for all the others (possible exceptions might include Colima, which is--slight exaggeration--basically a microstate, or maybe some extremely small cities/states like Aguascalientes itself that don't have much of any English-language coverage at all, but no evidence was offered in the move request whatsoever). Thanks for putting the accent in Querétaro City, btw--my bad for being lazing and omitting it. Red   Slash  17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RS: Yes, I think it just comes down to the original bulk request being poorly formed, in that it wrongly assumed that none of the listed cities commonly use the "City" form, whereas spot checks showed that wasn't true for several (and suggested it might not be true for any). I think ideally those that haven't been checked wouldn't be moved until they have, but it's not the end of the world either way and I'm fine with whatever solution's easiest. Recommendations, Scepter? ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

, I must applaud you for your efforts. But I think there’s a bit of confusion lurking here. There is no community consensus, nor local consensus in this RM, that says that demonstration of some common usage of a given natural disambiguation for a topic means that this natural disambiguation, and not parenthetic disambiguation of the undisputed most common name, must be used as the title. As noted in the discussion, NATURAL merely notes that the natural disambiguation may be preferred. Well, in all of these cases, without any exceptions, consensus in this RM clearly prefers the parenthetic disambiguation. Please close according to community and local consensus. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 02:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , hello? Would you prefer to address this in an MR? —В²C ☎ 06:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I was considering a move review as well, since no evidence was provided for the vast majority of the cities that the X City name was not common; I provided several counterexamples for Chihuahua and Queretaro specifically (and I believe Huw did the same for Oaxaca), and I think I provided enough evidence to show that if those two or three were off, than everything was off.


 * Frankly, I think the move request should've been dropped as no consensus, and then people individually could've made proposals at each one to look at how much English-language usage the X City form had for each one individually. Most likely Chihuahua would've failed (stayed at City); perhaps Aguascalientes itself would've succeeded; in any case, I was thinking of a move review. (Also, B2C, I have so much respect for you, even ywith this disagreement, but like... you gave Spectre 28 hours to respond, give her a bit more time Face-smile.svg ) Red   Slash  17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat, even if evidence of common usage of Name City was shown for every city on the list that wouldn’t be sufficient to override the consensus to move them all to parenthetic disambiguation, as proposed, nonetheless. While lack of common usage is sufficient reason to not use a given alternative name, evidence of common usage is not sufficient to use it rather than parenthetic disambiguation. There are other considerations to be made and ultimately it’s decided by consensus, not the closer. The closer is only supposed to decide what the consensus is. Otherwise it’s a WP:SUPERVOTE. Here, the closer’s unilateral decision to exclude first 1, then 2 then 3, from the list, when consensus for/against the move of each was equal for all, is a super vote. —-В²C ☎ 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bizarre as it may seem, I'd say exactly the opposite. Got lots of respect for you, B2C, but to me, saying "yeah the amount of supports for Durango City vis-a-vis Chihuahua City were the same, but Chihuahua City had actual evidence presented and Durango didn't, so I'm going to treat them differently" sounds like something a good closer would do.
 * But of course that ignores the more important point that there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Durango City isn't a common name for the city. Which is why we're going to go to Move Review. Red   Slash  17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is a problem with these multi-page RMs; indeed, I went into the closing process hoping that I wouldn't have to move the pages. But as it was, the RM was balancing on the scales of "move" vs "no consensus"; the consistency argument isn't as strong given the examples of other cities (in Mexico, Japan, and of course, Cork). I also agree that "X City" would be a decent enough NATURAL disambiguation, were it not for the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL"; except for the three cases I exempted, I didn't see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that argument. With all that said, I don't oppose starting new singular RMs if the evidence for "X City" can be shown for the other cities in the list. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don’t see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that, it’s because you’re ignoring my rebuttal (in the last comment in the RM discussion) which points out that the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL simply points out an extreme limit to where natural disambiguations are not to be used. It’s quite a leap not supported by local or community consensus to interpret that to mean, “if the natural disambiguation in question is not obscure then it must be used.”  Yet you are inexplicably interpreting it to mean that. The key question here is not about whether the natural disambiguation may be used. I mean, in those cases where it’s obscure it may not be used, of course. But in any case where it’s (at least arguably) not obscure that just means it may be used, not that it must be. So, in those cases where the natural disambiguation is not obscure the key question is which disambiguation form is preferred. And, again, consensus was the same for every city in the list: parenthetic disambiguation is preferred to Name City disambiguation in each of these cases. Whether natural disambiguation is allowed or not by NATURAL due to level of obscurity is entirely besides the point. Yet you chose to take that into account. That’s a SUPERVOTE. —В²C ☎ 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Aguascalientes City
An editor has asked for a Move review of Aguascalientes City. 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. Red  Slash  19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hi @Sceptre! I landed on your userpage following a recent ANI post of yours and I just wanted to say that I am really quite impressed with the visual structure. I am sure you get this a lot, but it's such a pleasure to read through. I've probably spent more time editing my userpage than I care to admit (lmao) and it's always nice to see some inspirations. Ppt91   talk   20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Michelle Confait
Hi. I would ask you to reconsider this close. The nomination and support votes were based on a flawed premise, that Confait identified as a trans woman. As I said in the discussion, there is no reliable evidence for this. An editor added it to the article a few years ago and the editors who supported the nomination clearly just supported without checking the evidence (or lack of). In any case, this is a well-known murder in British criminal history and the victim is invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. We cannot apply modern ideas to something that happened fifty years ago. The rename is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline here is MOS:GENDERID, which applies to anyone whose gender might (operative word) be questioned. There's no dispute that there's a question about Confait's gender, and furthermore, it's not disputed that they preferred to be known as "Michelle". Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME allows divergence if the most common name is problematic; the amount of "per nom" comments indicate a general agreement that that's the case. Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, as I said, the whole nomination seems based on an unsourced edit made to the article some years ago that has clearly been taken as true without any evidence. The supporters have merely accepted that it is true without any knowledge of the situation (note they all came before I pointed this out). Nobody fifty years ago would have referred to themselves as a trans woman. We cannot change history to what we think it should be. We can only report what it was. This is a famous murder case and is invariably referred to as the murder of Maxwell Confait. How is it helping our users to use a name that was never actually used in the many reliable sources on the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether Confait would've used the phrase "trans woman" or not isn't within the spirit of MOS:GENDERID; indeed, I have a suspicion that the "might be questioned" line was to catch historical cases such as Sylvia Rivera (et. al) where the line between "homosexual transvestite" and "trans woman" are blurred. I've found two other sources further to what was mentioned in the RM which also talk about Confait in the context of being transgender: Reclaiming Genders by Whittle et al, and this Salon article about Amanda Milan, which talks about Confait's murder being at the top of a long list of murdered trans sex workers. As far as I'm concerned, the Gianassi book, alongside those two sources I've listed in this reply, should be enough to meet the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID. Sceptre (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Murder of Michelle Confait
An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Michelle Confait. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:1896 Summer Olympics
Please rethink or undo this close. Closers ought to know how to intepret policy and assess arguments under the lens of policy, but your closing summary indicates you don't know how to do that, and instead ignored policy based on the local consensus. TITLECHANGES can't be used to oppose change just for the sake of opposing change, and all the other policy-based arguments (COMMONNAME, CONCISE) supported the move. Avilich (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did take those into account those policies, and also the previous RM. I did not see a consensus to move the article, just like the previous RM. I'd be happy to relist if you'd like, but in my opinion, it'll probably be closed again in a week with the same result. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I won't ask you to relist since it has been a while already, so I'm posting this on move review Move review/Log/2023 March. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Combat (Torchwood)


The article Combat (Torchwood) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donald D23  talk to me  16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Combat (Torchwood) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Combat (Torchwood) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Combat (Torchwood) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Donald D23  talk to me  02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Weapons of resident evil 4" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons_of_resident_evil_4&redirect=no Weapons of resident evil 4] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Move review
I strongly disapprove of your move of a relatively unknown person to Albert von Sachsen. That person is by no stretch of the imagination the common name or primary topic for such a term, and if the move is not reverted, I will be taking it to move review. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've got things backwards here. As there isn't another article that should be at Albert von Sachsen (other than the 18th-century Duke of Teschen, where NCROY applies differently), then the man born in 1934 can be assumed to be the primary topic.
 * On the subject of COMMONNAME – as has been brought up in several German ex-nobility RMs since the abortive coup attempt last year, the use of princely titles in pretence is a WP:POVTITLE issue, and NCROY's discouragement of the use of such titles has particular weight; the use of these titles has gone from harmless althist nerdery to a far-right shibboleth.
 * NPOV – as a fundament of the encyclopedia – clearly requires that in the that a POVTITLE's COMMONNAME status is evidenced. It is not enough to say "X is the common name" to oppose moving away from "X" when it has problems; it must be demonstrated through evidence that the name is overwhelmingly the most common name to the point where POVTITLE is met, and in the majority of these RMs, not even the "evidence it's the common name" bar is met. Sceptre (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I have to confess I'm a little baffled here. How can you possibly find consensus for a move in such a discussion, when the voting numbers are so clearly not in favour of a move, and the overarching policy argument of WP:COMMONNAME a powerful rationale not to move. Your rationale for closing this, and indeed the previous RM (which I voted against, but then didn't notice it has been closed as moved) rest on the assertion that the long-standing names were "problematic", but the participants in the RM were far from convinced by that argument. As such, your determination as closer doesn't override multiple opinions that thy weren't problematic, which unfortunately makes your close against the numbers a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE. The whole thing is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in a way that isn't supported by sources. Please could you look at both of these RMs again and consider objectively whether there's any way it's a consensus to move? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is not an absolute. As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, COMMONNAME allows us to use other article titles if the most common name is problematic, and in none of the ex-German nobility RMs that I’ve closed since then have I been convinced by the arguments the princely titles are not problematic. Mostly, it’s a sea of “per COMMONNAME” arguments without evidence. The onus is on people to prove that COMMONNAMEs pass the higher muster if they’re problematic, and that proof hasn’t been met, and numerical majorities are not a substitute for proof in that regard. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "COMMONNAME is not an absolute" - of course, there are some exceptions but on the other hand, COMMONNAME is listed on a policy page and is widely accepted in countless RM discussions down the years as the standard we use, absent strong reason against, and is a close proxy to Wikipedia's philosophy that we reflect the world as it is, through WP:V and WP:NPOV, rather than attempting to chart a course that editors think is more "correct" than real world usage. In this case, where (a) the common name was clearly for the old title, (b) the numbers in the discussion were clearly for the old title, and (c) the old title was the longstanding status quo, there can be no objective reason for choosing something else. Your interpretation of what's problematic above is your opinion, but you know it's not one of which other editors in good standing such as myself and others share. As such, it is your duty to either close in line with consensus, or simply cast a vote yourself. You don't have the right to impose an alternative view on us in this way. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and NPOV – as one of the five pillars – overrides the "use the common name" shorthand. Like I said, in the case of non-neutral titles, it is incumbent on those wishing to use them to provide evidence that it's the common name – as POVTITLE says, in a "significant majority of English-language sources" — and in the related RMs that I've closed, the evidence – when provided – is sorely lacking. Sceptre (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, what do you mean by "German ex-nobility" which I've seen you use here and there about people whose families were royalty, not nobility? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Albert von Sachsen
An editor has asked for a Move review of Albert von Sachsen. 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. DrKay (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * it would be useful to let the discussion above play out before starting a MRV. I also think we should include the December 2022 RM in the mix too, as that also seems to lack consensus and is probably sufficiently recent to challenge. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , are you sure you can !vote on your own contested move? It seems to me that your explanation should be prefixed with "Closer's response" or similar, not "Endorse"... Rosbif73 (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Cult of Skaro for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cult of Skaro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cult of Skaro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppenheimer
There is no longer any ambiguity regarding the surname when it is at "Oppenheimer (surname)". The primary topic does not need to be mentioned in the lede. The thing you're referring to would apply to Oppenheimer (disambiguation), which I already changed. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At the same time, JRO does need to be in . I'm relaxed on where it is, but given the prominence of the primary topic… the lede seemed more appropriate than buried in the weeds; some people might still get to the page by that page! Sceptre (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor request
Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content WP:LINT errors on Wikipedia, and only 8 remain within user talk space. One of those is on your User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13 within the "Awww Will!" section. If you would be willing, would you please make the following adjustment?

Change this

to this:

This will correct this fostered content issue, and replace the fonts for span style to address the neighboring obsolete tag issues. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The page is full-protected so I've added a FPER tag so an admin can do it instead. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Legoktm (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that you weren't able to access the page, Sceptre. Thank you for the assist, Legoktm. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RM close
Your close at Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) was way too early; it has literally been only a day and a half since the indictment, which is not enough time for discussion to evolve. Furthermore, the existing !votes don't support that there is any consensus either way yet, especially since the original proposer stated that they no longer exclusively support their original title and is open to further discussion. Please reverse the close and let the RM play out over a normal timeframe. Thanks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From my reading there's a general consensus that the articles about the two indictments should be similarly titled, and I have no opinion on what form this should take, and no objection to an immediate further RM encompassing both. That said, I don't think the timing of the election interference indictment is that relevant; it had been inevitable for some time, and I don't think there was a dearth of discussion warranting it being deliberately kept in the RM backlog. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your close that the consensus only applies to there being a parenthetical "government documents" to "classified documents" while discussion was actively ongoing between the two possibilities, and if there was no consensus, then that change shouldn't have been made.  I'd rather not have to do another RM over that if possible.  Thanks.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Llywelyn ab Iorwerth
Please review your close here. It does not seem to me reflect the actual consensus or evidence. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See the discussion section of the move request. It's very clear from the evidence provided by that the version with the patronymic are the COMMONNAME. The English form is very slightly than with either of the Welsh forms alone, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the English form "wins" because of people having different opinions on how much the vocal folds need to vibrate before you use a specific consonant. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Page move
you closed the moving discussion thing in Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi but the page didn't get moved  Abo Yemen  ✉  16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User category renamed
Hi, please update the category code in your boxes.css page from Wikipedia AfC reviewers to Wikipedia Articles for Creation reviewers. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Revolution (2024), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Bennett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dustin Poirier, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Sceptre, you are welcome to put back the info if you can provide independent, reliable source to support the claim for verification.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation
Hi @Sceptre

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors
Please would you update your relevant user sub-page from Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors to lowercase? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to Category:Wikipedia good article contributors – lowercase g too. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May
Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A continuous map f:X->Y between topological spaces is said to be null-homotopic if it is homotopic to a constant map
Hello there.

It's been a strange year. I let our relationship lapse and I'm sorry. It's mostly, but not entirely, because I abjectly refuse to use Discord anymore and I forgot my Matrix credentials.

Email would be good. Jitsi coffee dates would be good. I still think of you. But if you don't want to anymore, I completely understand.

Sasha foxxo (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

secondhand notification
Per a request by, because of your participation in Talk:Michael Larson, you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "Press Your Luck scandal" was written, "Michael Larson" was turned into a redirect. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of: I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but it was implied that I have been negligent in my canvassing. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Press Your Luck scandal is discussing WP:BIO1E, the article title, and more.
 * Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation) is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.

WP:RMNAC explanations needed
Sceptre, at Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game and Talk:AFC Championship Game you simply said "not moved", without saying how you weighed the arguments, and without indicating whether you saw a consensus for uppercase, versus no consensus. Could you please expand on those closing statements? Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * et al had the correct interpretation of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will you be adding those rationales to the close statements, please? Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Is NFL Draft trademarked? Not that I'd necessarily reopen that can of brain-worms (and, importantly, and unlike the conference championship games, uppercasing does not "lead" in its n-gram derby). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sceptre: I don't think the trademark rationale was used by anyone, was it? And I have some doubt whether it really is trademarked. Consider striking it from your close.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, I think I'll need to call a move review if you don't re-list these. Your reasoning sounds too much like a super-vote based on non-facts and unsupported opinions, as opposed to a reasonable weighing of the positions articulated. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you haven't edited since before this; I'll be patient (sort of). Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was off-wiki yesterday. I've added the above rationale to each closure, but I strongly dispute the idea that they're supervotes. Sometimes, the consensus just isn't there. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, I've no problem with your closures & will endorse them if they're challenged. But, I recommend that you elaborate on your closures at the two RMs, to avoid it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Move review for AFC Championship Game
An editor has asked for a Move review of AFC Championship Game. 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. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Move review for 1933 NFL Championship Game
An editor has asked for a Move review of 1933 NFL Championship Game. 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. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Updates to Brookfield Properties Locations
Hi Sceptre, I work for Brookfield Properties, and I am trying to update the page to include that the company operates in 9 locations. You made helpful contributions to the Brookfield Properties article a few years ago, and I'm hoping you will take a look at my edit request and consider making the edit. Thanks for your help, Claudiailagan (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)