User talk:Sceptre/Archive 64

DYK nomination of European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019
Hello! Your submission of European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor
I thought what a strange reaction, 'til I looked up wikt:boner. I'd never heard of #3 before. Cabayi (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have the chance, look up the Batman comic where the Joker goes on a spree of "boner" crimes. In this day and age, it looks positively lewd. Sceptre (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's going to be playing on my mind the rest of the day. Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template editor granted
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. 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.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ping for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&page=User:Sceptre rights log].


 * Useful links
 * All template-protected pages
 * User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
 * Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Universitatea Craiova
Dear Sceptre,

I am writing regarding the revert you made on the CS Universitatea Craiova page. That is not what I meant. The change suggested on 25 September is correct. What I meant with the next edit request was that the whole page needs to be separated.

The judgment I provided means that the team founded in 2013 has nothing to do with the one in 1948. They have the same name but are essentially different. The new team (the one in 2013) does not have the history, records and honors of the one founded in 1948. That is exactly what the court said.

Consequently, we have two different clubs that happen to share the same name, however they are two and different, not one. Thus, my plea was to divide the page in two different ones, one for the team of 1948 and the other for the team of 2013. I explained there in detail what those changes imply. I cannot edit the page myself otherwise I would.

Thank you for your time, Misu Mișu Chera (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mișu Chera (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I am obligated to provide you with this notice, apologies if it doesn't follow how you want your talk page to be laid out. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC over at Talk:Self-coup
I have started an RfC with hopes of leading to some constructive consensus by the time the protection expires on the article. Your opinions and views on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully this can finally draw a close on this conflict. I recognise our previous discussion was rather heated and was hoping that by starting fresh in a more official form that we can put this right. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Recognition
Hi. I often see you around doing great work on template-protected requests. It's great to have your help. I remember you back in 2006 I think, long time now :) Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sceptre/userpage
Hello, Sceptre,

I just wanted to double-check with you that you also wanted this page deleted but you couldn't post a CSD tag on it because of the protection on it. Just let me know and I'll delete it for you. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. Sceptre (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gjirafa
Hello Sceptre,

In regard to this submission: Draft:Gjirafa.com it was declined with the following message "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I wanted to reach out and understand better, since this is the first article for me.

1. Can you please help me revise if you believe that it reads as an advertisement? (I have taken the writing style from a reputable wikipedia page, i.e., Amazon (company) since I have declared on my page I have conflict of interest to this article). Any advice/help on this area would be highly appreciated.

2. In terms of referring to reliable source, the Gjirafa article has tier one sources, e.g., A. The Economist The_Economist B. NZZ Neue_Zürcher_Zeitung C. TechCrunch [TechCrunch]] D. Sec.gov filing U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission E. nyu.edu New_York_University F. peer reviewed academic journal Springer Publishing, etc Optimus212 (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a writing style question, mostly; it seems as the citations are being used to make the corporation seem more notable than it is. At the same time, there is also the question of notability of corporations to deal with; I think Gjirafa are on the wrong side of that bubble at the moment. Sceptre (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Adam Fitch
Hi, thank you for reviewing the draft for Adam Fitch. Can you explain why he doesn’t seem notable enough for a page please? I believe the contents of the page proves he’s done work that is of importance to esports.

Thank you, Gillian Gillianwalker123 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a case of Fitch being a big fish in a small pond – he's still in a small pond. There is somewhat of a high bar for journalists, and I can't see how he passes WP:N in general or WP:JOURNALIST specifically; if the UK eSports Award was itself notable, I think it'd be a different question. Sceptre (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Sceptre. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASceptre 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, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. 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, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * could you explain a bit further? I’m confused what this has to do with me. Sceptre (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! You were listed in a case on COIN. See the page linked above. I noticed that many users had not been notified, even though the page says to do so, so I did a round of notifications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement
I see no level of support in Talk:Great Replacement to justify any page move. Only the nom and 2 others endorsed removing "The" in this way. This should be returned to its prior title (The Great Replacement) and closed as "no consensus". -- Netoholic @ 13:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the discussion, there was a consensus for removing the definite article in some way. That's why I closed the discussion how I did; the two most popular titles by far were both without the definite article, but there's no consensus over the words "conspiracy theory". It's not a first-past-the-post situation at all. Sceptre (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its incorrect to consider the "+ conspiracy theory" options for consensus about the THE. Those suggested options also include lowercasing to "replacement" and removal of The is a natural consequence of replacing use of the proper name with generic terms. Your solution is a half-measure which satisfies only 3 participants. This is a clear "no consensus" situation. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who voted "+ conspiracy theory" I think that was a correct read of the discussion. Nblund talk 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Move of Rye Dale
I created the article Rye Dale, and unfortunately I was not notified of the RM, so could not contribute to the discussion before you closed it yesterday.

Rye Dale is the name of the dale or upper valley of the River Rye. Ryedale is the name of a local government district which covers a much broader area - as one of the sources cited (http://www.yorkshiremoors.co.uk/gazetteer/rye_dale.html) says, "a number of 'Ryedale' villages are not actually in Rye Dale". One contributor claimed that there are no reliable sources for the name Rye Dale. That is not true. The most authoritative source for British place names is probably the Ordnance Survey, which uses Rye Dale (not Ryedale) to refer to the upper valley (54.28188°N, -1.13558°W go to OS maps on the Bing Maps UK line, then enlarge to the 1:25000 scale).

I really think the move should be reversed. If not, the redirect should be to River Rye, Yorkshire, as one editor suggested. But most dales of any size in Yorkshire have their own article, because each tends to be the name of a distinct geographical area and community which is not the same as the river which often give the dales its name (e.g Eskdale, Coverdale, Swaledale, Wharfedale, Nidderdale). And "dale" usually refers to the upper valley of a river and not the lower course of the river. In its lower course the Rye flows through the Vale of Pickering, which no-one would describe as a dale.--Mhockey (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more of a merge than a move, and you're more than welcome to reverse it if you wish; there was scant discussion and I had to apply some of my local knowledge to it; though I'm from the other end of Yorkshire, it did seem clear to me that the Rye Dale was mostly encompassed within Ryedale (with the upper course being in Hambleton DC). I chose to go with the redirect to the council area because of the principle of least astonishment, but nothing is set too much in stone. Sceptre (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Dreamworld
Hi Sceptre, would you mind reopening your close at Dream world (plot device)? I was just about to comment and I imagine it would affect the outcome.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * sure, give me a minute to move the articles back. Sceptre (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (It probably looks I'm heaping complaints upon complaints, but this ping wouldn't have worked. There's a fairly obscure aspect of the notifications system (I didn't know about it until quite late myself): "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.") – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Jat people
That's an odd close at Talk:Jat people. True, there was no consensus to move that page (though I'd probably have relisted given that the idea was floated that Jats might be more in line with the naming conventions). But I'm really struggling to see the consensus to move Jat (disambiguation). Yes, two people claimed there was no primary topic, but they didn't substantiate that claim at all. Two others, however, argued, giving evidence, that the Jats are the primary topic. Any chance you might have closed it like that by mistake? – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, you're right. I'll move the disambiguation page back. Sceptre (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! I've cleaned up after the double-redirect-fixing bots (at JAT and the like). – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, looking at the participants, one !voter mentioned that there is no primary topic, without giving any reason. Other !vote is WP:PERX. Rest of the participants clearly explained that Jat people is the primary topic and that Jats is the preferable title. In fact, the amount of quality sources already listed at the Jat people are more than one could find for rest of the listed topics put together. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Drummond-Arthabaska
Thanks for your closure of the move. Wouldn't it be appropriate to have the hyphen version redirect to the emdash version, on the theory that we are no longer using the *style* of dash for disambiguation? So the hyphen version, which used to *be* the article on the defunct provincial riding, should now redirect to the defunct federal riding, which still employs the emdash? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference would be en-dashes for both, but that's a wider discussion. But, yes, I see the utility in the redirect going to the federal riding instead (undab to undab, as it were). Sceptre (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Les Echos
Hey Sceptre, thanks for closing the RMs for Les Echos (France) and Les Echos (Mali). Would you mind also moving the concerning dab page Les Échos to the proper naming? Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * On a more minor note - any particular reason to move these without leaving a redirect? I don't see why a redirect would be controversial / problematic here, seems a legit potential spelling, and it was the location of the article for a long time (meaning links to the article on external sites are now pointing to a redlink).  SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's to effect a round-robin move so the page histories can be swapped by non-admins. The titles with diacritics actually do redirect to the ones without diacritics. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of False Pretenses (film)
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on False Pretenses (film). I do not think that False Pretenses (film) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because simply does not fit G14; disambiguates 3 different articles. This is FYI, I assume there was a mistake somewhere. I request that you consider not re-tagging False Pretenses (film) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Persia
Hi. I must say I hugely disagree regarding the "no consensus" thing in Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia. It was easily demonstrated that the sources supported a move (we have rules for that, WP:COMMONNAME). I think it was highly unfair to end it like that, and I want to it be re-opened, if that's a thing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm loath to re-open it, as it was open for nearly two months. Within those two months, there wasn't any sort of consensus I could glean. You're free to take it to Move Review, but I don't see any consensus in that two-month-long discussion. Sceptre (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a single of those opposing comments actually attempted to rebut the WP:COMMONNAME argument, thus a move was completely valid. This is just more work for me, great. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RM for First World War centenary
Hi Sceptre,

I am requesting that you revisit/reconsider your close of Talk:First World War centenary, based on the weight and distribution of arguments in the disscussion.
 * The supporting arguments relied on existing policy (Consistency in article titles, an explanatory supplement to the policy on article titles) and usage of "World War I"/"First World War" throughout Wikipedia. These arguments were not refuted, and often not even addressed, by those opposing the move.
 * The opposing arguments were a mix of MOS:ENGVAR (not applicable due to MOS:TITLECON), MOS:TIES (not applicable because the article is not specific to a particular English-speaking country), and apathy (e.g., "pointless", "it really, really doesn't matter"). All of these arguments were rebutted during the discussion, and for the most part the rebuttals were not addressed.
 * A nearly two-thirds majority (7–4, or 64%) supported renaming.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 7–4 isn't really a persuasive headcount anyway, so it does come down to the persuasiveness of the arguments. As far as ENGVAR goes, my reading was that the ENGVAR argument was persuasive, given the commemoration was much more observed in Commonwealth and European countries, and along with the IWM using that phrase, I couldn't discount it. Hence the closure as "no consensus" – it's not a closure of "not moved", it's a closure to reflect there was no consensus to move. It's a pedantic distinction, but still an important one.  Sceptre (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisting RMs
Missed your relisting notice at Talk:Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America because it was entered in the wrong place. In order for the bot to recognize your relist, you have to place the template just after the nominator's signature. Best to you!  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 04:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Bosnian Girl, 2003, Submission declined on 12 October 2019 by Sceptre (talk).
Hi Sceptre! I am writing to you in regards to you comments or argumentation why the submission of the Bosnian Girl, 2003 was declined since I do not understand why the submissions was understood as an advertisement. The submissions describes the work of art, accompanied by an artist statement that additionally contextualizes the work. The list of exhibitions in which the work has been included is much needed and valuable info when doing research on a specific art work, artist or topic for example. The sources which are used as references are all, except the artists page, all reliable sources which were of course by no means created by the artist herself but by journalists, writers, curators, critics, etc. Thus, I would kindly ask for further clarification on what is expected or why the subimission was declined on these terms? Thank you in advance, I appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivazava (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv
Anything that can be done to improve the Wikipedia coverage of this case?


 * --2001:4898:E008:1:21A9:502:77B3:B060 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * --2001:4898:E008:1:21A9:502:77B3:B060 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * --2001:4898:E008:1:21A9:502:77B3:B060 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please help us Sceptre. --2001:4898:E008:3:7686:2D67:27EC:B1B5 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Any updates on this? --2001:4898:E008:3:659D:BD70:1F9C:C9FB (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

National Assembly (South Korea)
Hi, any chance you could reopen this RM? I only modified the request a few days ago and discussion was still ongoing, so I don't think a relist would hurt. PC78 (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bump. While your closing advice for a broader discussion is probably sound, this RM had not gone stale and would have benefited from a relist. Can you look again please? PC78 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I closed it rather than relist it for more discussion was because of the consistency argument; I think the discussion would be better served for a wide-ranging move request rather than just one. Sceptre (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but further discussion might have indicated whether or not there is any appetite for applying this move on a wider scale. As it is, that's difficult to judge. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Najran attack
Hi, I think we should have waited some time for more editors to participate. The editor who opposed didnt respond to the arguments. The current title is factually wrong as the ground attack was not in Najran and the ground attack is the subject of the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also from your talk page you seem to have some problems with not properly closing RM discussions.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Move review for 2019 Najran attack
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 Najran attack. 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. SharabSalam (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan Essex
Should Metropolitan Essex be class=draft or some other class?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Section 2
Hi there - would you please reconsider this close? Of the 12 people who participated, including the nom, there was only majority support for Sections 2, 5, and 22 (8 for each of those). Sections 25 and 31 had 6 in support, Section 32 had 5 in support, and Section 28 had 4 in support. It was difficult to tell this - I needed to go through and make a chart - for the reasons I put in my oppose. These are different topics that should have been considered separately. But even given that, it's clear there is not enough consensus for at least several more (if not all) of the articles. Thanks for the close and for your consideration here. Dohn joe (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dohn joe Wikipedia is not a democracy and there's more to it than mere bean counting. I agree with the close but given the complexity I do think it's best the close be amended to include two sentences of rationale. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again - just wanted to check in and see if you had a chance to consider reconsidering the close. Dohn joe (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your move of Transsexual pornography to Trans porn
I suggest you reverse your requested-move closure of Transsexual pornography to Trans porn. There were 5 participants (plus a 6th who is now indeffed), yet you chose to go with the position advanced only weakly by a single participant,, based primarily on their own Google test, which contradicted 's Google test, and only mentioned one RS, which spelled out "pornography".

The votes of, , Mathglot, and were explicitly or implicitly based on policy just as much as WanderingWanda's, so I see no reason to completely ignore all of them. As noted, Mathglot's own Google test got a contrary result. And "porn" is slang, so its use on Google over "pornography" means nothing - our article on Buttocks isn't called "Ass" for instance.

I am bringing this here instead of going straight to move review, as directed. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think whether "porn" is appropriate for an encyclopedia title is a valid concern. Looking it up, Merriam-Webster does list it as "informal" (though not "slang".) Reliable sources like NYTimes do use the word "porn" however: . As for Mathglot's searches, note that they were on Google proper, rather than Google Books/News/etc, which WP:COMMONNAME discourages. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above, this was a poor close and not the concensus of the discussion. Sceptre, this is the second time I find myself on your talk page in recent weeks for the same reason. Please consider relisting RMs to allow for further discussion when there is no clear concensus. PC78 (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree per above. Personally, I don't think users will use the word "pornography" or "transsexual" if they want to find such pornography or article on the topic. – Aνδρέας talk&#124;contributions 14:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To explain the closure: you can't just assert something is the common name of a concept without justification. Wanda was the only person who went through and checked what the common name actually is. There's an argument for "trans pornography" or "transgender pornography", but not really for "transsexual pornography". Given the entire discussion hinged on COMMONNAME, then the argument with the most weight prevails. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...then the argument with the most weight prevails. Based on consensus. It's not a suggestion box for you to just pick which one felt most convincing. There were multiple ways to interpret WanderingWanda's findings. Both you and WanderingWanda admit this above. It's pretty clear most participants preferred "transgender pornography" over the shortened version of either word. I suggest you re-close as that, or else relist it. Otherwise I have to go to move review. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weighing the arguments is absolutely what closers are supposed to do, per WP:RMCI. Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions...this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. With that said, I wouldn't personally have a problem with the discussion being re-opened for a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should reopen this one as well - I do not think you should be closing RMs based on the two examples here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Non admin close of controversial RM contrary to titling guidelines
Please undo your close of Thriller (album) and leave to an experienced admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-admins are allowed and encouraged to close RM discussions, for one. On the other point, you should know that consensus is not a vote count; it's analysing and weighing up the arguments and working from there. There is a more wide-ranging consensus that "incomplete" disambiguations are allowed for primary topics, and Thriller was one of the examples cited as something where the album is the primary topic for albums, even by some people on the opposite side to the RfC consensus. I didn't feel comfortable with effectively overturning the RfC consensus, which is what the comments in opposition were basically relitigating. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this will have to go to Move Review to reopen it. Non-admins are not encouraged to close RMs against titling policy. Please undo and leave for an admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Trans porn
An editor has asked for a Move review of Trans porn. 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. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Close of Bolivia RM
Hi Sceptre, I was wondering if you would consider reversing your close of the Bolivia requested move. You acknowledge yourself that the discussion was very difficult to close; since discussion is still ongoing and the topic is quite controversial, I think it would be productive to re-open it and allow an admin to assess consensus. I am also a little concerned that your closing rationale only referred to external sources when assessing "no consensus". As you say, sources are divided, but in such a scenario a title can still be chosen based on WP:CRITERIA; several users did so, but this is not mentioned in your rationale. Thanks, — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey. The move discussion had gone on for twelve days already, which is about the time for a move discussion that was re–listed would typically take. "No consensus" is not a "Not moved" result; it just indicates that there is no consensus to move, and in such circumstances, we fall back onto the previous title. I think that another move request in the near-to-medium future, as long as it isn't disruptive, might very well return a consensus either way. Like I said when closing the move request, the word coup has some problems with neutrality, so we need some sort of consensus in those reliable sources that the coup is a coup, which isn't there (yet). For the record, if I was taking part in the discussion instead of closing it, I would've supported the move, but I felt that the consensus wasn't just there yet. Sceptre (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that "no consensus" doesn't mean "not moved", but I felt the discussion was moving in a productive direction (e.g., Jamez42 had just posted a large table comparing each side's arguments that I hadn't had a chance to properly reply to yet) and it feels premature (to me) to close it. I hope you'll consider relisting it; 12 days may be longer than the minimum required time before closing, but for a controversial move I think it wouldn't hurt to discuss it further. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With everything said, I see no problem in extending it a few days. I doubt a sudden consensus is going to develop (sans some real-life event happening), but more in-depth discussion never hurts. Sceptre (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I sincerely appreciate it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of MPs who lost their seat in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Chambers ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_MPs_who_lost_their_seat_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_MPs_who_lost_their_seat_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/new
Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/new, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/new and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/new during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

protection
Hi dear... Please protect this page: Gabriel Calderón Some users are hurting the article by adding unnecessary and biased content by non-English sources... I warned some of these users... thanks Editor7798 (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Snopake.jpg


The file File:Snopake.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sceptre/modules/boxes.css
Could you please subst/replace the uses of click with the base structure? The template has been deprecated and I don't want anything to break if it gets deleted. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. Sceptre (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Speed 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/High_Speed_2 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/High_Speed_2?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Graduate Hotels
Hi! You left a note on my article for Graduate Hotels that it felt like a conflict of interest when reading. I have since edited the piece to be more objective and included more citations from relevant news sources. Could you please review again? Would love to get my first page published!

Thank you, Eagate23 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
 Happy Birthday! Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Voyage of the Damned.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Voyage of the Damned.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) 19:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)