User talk:Sceptre/Archive 65

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of times the name &. Since you had some involvement with the List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  00:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

High Speed 2 edit war
Hi, I notice you're involved in an edit war on High Speed 2. I've not blocked you fully, and I've tried to avoid protecting the article, so instead I've blocked you from editing the article for 72 hours. I hope, in the interim, you may discuss with the other party and reach agreement on how to proceed. If you do reach agreement before the 72 hours, I'll unblock both parties and allow you both to return to editing. Nick (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation
Hi, with regards to Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation I think you closed it incorrectly, at best it was no consensus. You also applied the other page's logic incorrectly to that page as well. Further, that other page's move was also marked as no consensus. Jordan occupied the area from 47-67, that has nothing to do with the other page which is annexation. Please undo the close and move. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Two requested moves on the "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" article in the space of three months came back with the consensus that for its article title, "occupation" is not appropriate. Per our policy on article titles, article titles should generally be consistent, which is what tipped the scales from a "no consensus" result to a "move" result. Relatedly, I'm also disdainful of what appears to be an attempt to relitigate the issue again on the parent article talk page. Incidentally, pointing as Israel's action in the West Bank/Gaza either way is something that should be, ideally, left to other forums other than Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , That article has to do with annexation which is a separate issue of the occupation from 48-67. The annexation was a unilateral move by Jordan and it wasn't necessarily recognized internationally. That has nothing to do with EJ being occupied by Jordan from 48-67. You are confusing issues. My pointing to WB/Gaza is showing how Wikipedia is using the same terminology when no occupation exists yet we use occupation. If you even went to the article I linked to, you'd see that. Again, "Jordan annexation of the West Bank" wasn't the subject of this move request, you exceeded the scope of the RM. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how an article about the Islamisation of a city under the administration of a state isn't related to said state's annexation of the city and its surrounding region. The "Jordanian annexation..." discussions both returned a consensus that "occupation" wasn't appropriate in article titles relating to the West Bank during the nineteen years it was under Jordanian control; I'm just following that much larger consensus. Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , because annexation wasn't necessarily recognized by a majority of the countries. The territory was however under Jordanian occupation. Not sure how much clearer it can be. It's two separate issues. East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation from 48-67. You just instituted a biased title due to numbers winning the argument. Congratulations. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And of course your comments here are showing bias which is clear that you should not have closed this. I'll just aks you a final question: Is Jerusalem under Israel occupation or rule right now? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll provide an answer to that. The legal situation is that, like all the territory seized by Israel in 1967, East Jerusalem is considered occupied. West Jerusalem is not considered occupied, though neither is it considered to be part of Israeli territory. Prior to 1967, the situation of East Jerusalem with regards to Jordan was considered to be the same as West Jerusalem with regard to Israel is today, that is, not occupied, but not part of Jordanian territory either. It's very sad that there are still editors trying to equate the West Bank's legal situation prior to 1967 with the situation now.      ←   ZScarpia  16:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , You do realize that everything you said was false. Under the 1947 partition plan Jerusalem wasn't part of Jordan. Jordan occupied EJ from 1947-1967, how is that any different than Israel and Jerusalem? It's pure hypocrisy. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Make an effort to read what I wrote correctly. I didn't write that East Jerusalem was 'part' of Jordan. You insist on writing about Jordanian occupation. Prior to and after 1967, was Israel occupying West Jerusalem and all the territory to the west of the Green Line that hadn't been allocated to it under the Partition Plan?      ←   ZScarpia  17:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , was Jordan occupying Jerusalem from 1948-1967? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * [EC] No, not in the legal sense that Israel is currently occupying territory to the east of the Green Line. Has Israel been occupying West Jerusalem and other territory to the west of the Green Line not allocated to it under the Partition Plan since 1948? You can write that Palestine was 'occupied' by the British prior to 1948, but, in a legal sense, that was not true of the period after the Mandate came into force. Legally, the situations existing in the whole of Palestine during the mandate period, in the period post 1948 to the west of the Green Line and to the east of the Green Line up until 1967 (when Israel seized territory after starting a war) are not equivalent to the situation existing to the east of the Green Line after 1967.      ←   ZScarpia  18:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , the world considers Israel to be occupying Jerusalem, they don't put embassies there, they don't list it as part of Israel, except for a few countries. Do you consider Israel occupying Jerusalem? Don't be hypocritical. The same way we have an article Israeli occupation of the West Bank we can have this article. Otherwise, that article should be moved to Israeli rule of the West Bank using your logic. If Jordan didn't occupy it, then Israel doesn't occupy it now. You can't have it both ways. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Legally, the world considers Israel to be occupying everything seized in the war it started in 1967 which it hasn't since relinquished. It considers it to be occupying East Jerusalem. But NOT West Jerusalem. However, although it doesn't consider West Jerusalem to be occupied, that doesn't mean that it considers West Jerusalem to be, legally, Israeli territory. Using your logic, if you want to consider the West Bank occupied during the period of Jordanian Rule, you should also consider everything under Israeli control to the west of the Green Line which wasn't allocated to it under the Partition Plan occupied. Do you?
 * Legally, the period of Jordanian rule of the West Bank was not seen as an occupation either, though, again, the West Bank was not seen as, legally, Jordanian territory, which is why Jordan's attempted annexation was seen as illegitimate.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Might want to look up the closure of the Straits of Tiran before you talk about starting wars. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a number of things you might want to check out:
 * The navigable passage through the Straits of Tiran is in Egyptian territorial waters.


 * Although closure was announced, no ships on passage to or from Israel were stopped.
 * Though an armistice existed, Israel and Egypt were still technically in a state of belligerence, altering the rights of passage.
 * A surprise Israeli attack on Syria had been expected.
 * Israel made plans to provoke an incident in the Straits of Tiran, giving it a pretext for launching a war.
 * On launching the war, Israeli politicians and diplomats maintained the lie for months that Egypt had attacked Israel first. Some 'Zionist' books still maintain that that was the case.
 * In the 1948 War, Israel wanted to end a ceasefire, though it didn't want to be seen as the ceasefire breaker, so a convoy was put together and driven up and down in front of the Egyptian lines. The Egyptians not firing on the convoy, the Israelis blew up a few of their own trucks and then claimed that the Egyptians were responsible. The start of the 67 War could be seen as somewhat similar on a larger scale, but without the Israelis going to the trouble of blowing anything of their own up first.
 * Hopefully you're not trying to claim that Israel didn't actually start the war.
 * Anything else you would like to add about the status of the West Bank under Jordanian rule?
 *    ←   ZScarpia  20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I heard also Israel attacked the Palestinian moon bases as well. No wonder Pallywood gets such fair treatment in the world. I stopped reading after your first false statement, which incidentally was your first statement. Don't bother replying since it's clear that you're getting facts from Ma'an or the PA Propaganda Ministry so it's not worth time to continue having any conversation. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for disobeying the instruction not to bother replying, but, it just so happens that, as you were adding your comment, I was going to add in a note about the attack under Ariel Sharon just before the 1967 war, when, you'll be disappointed to hear, the IDF invaded, not the moon to attack Palestinian bases, but Egypt, where they killed a number of Egyptian troops at an army base.
 * Also pardon me if I compound that by admitting that I'm fairly unmoved by your opinions about the factuality of what I wrote and the quality of my sources.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre, back on the 31 December 2005, you were the editor who left the greeting on my talkpage when I registered an account. I thought I would drop by and see what you are up to. I'll take the opportunity to return your greeting, more than fourteen years late.    ←   ZScarpia  20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule
An editor has asked for a Move review of Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. 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. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Karen (slang)
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Your hook made our monthly list of most-viewed hooks! Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom Collins (rugby)
You recently closed my move request at Talk:Tom Collins (rugby) as "not moved". I admit the page should not be moved to Thomas John Collins, but I still think the current situation doesn't work, as "rugby" vs. "rugby union" is not a clear enough disambiguation between two people who lived a century apart. I quite like this suggestion from User:Necrothesp:
 * *Oppose. We don't use full names like this. Propose Tom Collins (rugby, born 1895) and Tom Collins (rugby union, born 1994) as the standard disambiguators.

Can I make another move request? J I P &#124; Talk 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not your mother, go ahead and do it if you wish. :) Sceptre (talk) 02:08, 23 May 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) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Coup d'état
You've recently closed the move request at "Coup d'état" as no consensus. Although there are similar number of users in support and opposition, the oppose points do not make reference/are in opposition to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:RMNAC, "arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight". Thus, I think that the closure should be reevaluated. --17jiangz1 (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" isn't a "not moved" closure. I personally saw the argument by of enough weight that I couldn't make a determination that there was any consensus either way. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Tessa Majors move request NAC
Please explain more fully your closure and its reasoning? Here: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, just as an FYI ... I posted here on this matter: Help desk. Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can certainly help you out. Basically, there was a numerical majority of about 60%:40% in favour of moving the article. It's not a super majority where I would just close it as "moved", so at that point it turns to the weight of the arguments proposed. By far the argument that carries the most weight is that, generally, at this point of the judicial process, other articles typically don't use the term "murder" in their article titles. Some do, of course—I brought up the case of the Murder of Stephen Lawrence, which was at that article title before his murderers were convicted, and another is the murder of Tupac Shakur–but in this case, there is a massive BLP policy problem with the term "murder". Those were the arguments that tipped the scale towards moving the article; however, if you disagree, you are welcome to take it to move review, although I doubt you'll get much purchase there. Sceptre (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well ... how is it that these 2 things happened? (A) That the discussion was recently (a few months ago) closed with the exact opposite result?  That implies that the result is just "random", depending on which (random) editors participated and/or which (random) editor closed it ... no ... ?  (B)  How is it that your opinion (your personally "being convinced") supersedes and trumps what the RS's say?  How does that work exactly?  You also state that "generally" Wikipedia does not refer to these "un-convicted murders" as "murders".  I gave hundreds -- if not, thousands -- of Wikipedia examples.  Should all of those be changed?  You know, for consistency?  Let me know ... so I can start working on all 1,000 of them.  Sorry ... it's a pure joke that one editor's "reasoning" trumps RS's.  Not surprised.  But, it's still a joke.  What a shame.  Really.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, also, for your helpful suggestion ... you know, where I, quote, "won't get any purchase". (Translation: let's send Joe on a wild goose chase.)    I don't know how to look up old archives and such.  Can you show me where the other editor -- who did not agree with the first closing -- posted some type of "move review" somewhere (as I am supposedly "required" to do)?  I have no idea of how to look up "old" archived pages that are stored wherever they are stored.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I won't challenge the move, because I partially agree with some of what you said about the decision, and your close will make it an easy enough move back if there's a conviction. Nevertheless, it should probably have waited for an administrator close. Geogene (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So, where are you -- and others -- getting this "rule"? That we need a conviction to label a "murder"?  Where is that rule?  It seems that people are making it up, out of whole cloth.  I gave hundreds of examples (in Wikipedia, itself) where we commonly use the word "murder", absent any convictions.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I invite you to review my comments at the RfM in question. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Where is that?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Geogene (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Senedd


Hello, Sceptre. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Senedd".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect non-admin close
I have brought your incorrect non-admin close to the Administrators Noticeboard for review: Administrators'_noticeboard. The Banner talk 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This has since been moved to Move Review.  Calidum   15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
It is not permissible to engage in highly personalized WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on Wikipedia, especially over socio-political viewpoints, and most especially over ones covered by discretionary sanctions, as is human sexuality and gender, broadly construed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Jordi Roca
You've messed up the page move here, the article now at Jordi Roca has a corresponding talk page at Talk:Jordi Roca I Fontané, and the talk page of Talk:Jordi Roca relates to the article now at Jordi Roca (footballer). FWIW I also think your close was bad, given the nominator agreed there was no PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 21:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:42 (Doctor Who).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:42 (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. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request at Module talk:Gridiron color
Hello, Sceptre (talk), I was wondering if you would please review and possibly implement a template-protected edit request I have made over at Module talk:Gridiron color? I have tried asking other editors, such as Eagles247 & Euryalus, but Eagles247 will not reply to the message I left on his talk page, and Euryalus has said (and I quote) "Thanks for the offer but I'm not enough of an expert in either template design or football colour codes to offer a very informed opinion." Please help me? So far, no other editor whom I've reached out to has replied to this topic. Any help you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Remarks for The Signpost
Hi, because there are very few Wikipedia left that participated in the MfD above, I request that you make a few remarks about the decentralization of Esperanza. They can be about what ever you want: why Esperanza was deleted, what made the project so bad, the MfD itself. These remarks may be used in a future Signpost article. Please make your remarks here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the mfd of: WP:ESP P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Siding move
The talk page at Siding still has a Move discussion progress message. I'm not sure if this should just be deleted? Or should it be updated to point to the closed discussion? The current link is wrong due to the move. Thanks. MB 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, those message are typically kept. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure it should be kept, but the link to the discussion was wrong due to the double move here (Siding -> Siding (construction) & Siding (disambiguation) -> Siding). I manually edited the link now at Talk:Siding, just wondering if this is the proper procedure? MB 00:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

round robin moves
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I saw you closed this RM, and requested speedy deletion of target redirect under G6/db move. I have seen you performing page-swaps/round robin moves, so this confused me a little. May I ask why you requested speedy instead of performing page swap? Just curious. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was on my way out of the house when I closed that RM, and doing the round robin process in that case is more involved (as well as kind of hacky, but still necessary). Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * see you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your closing of the "70th Anniversary GP" move discussion
Hi. One of your arguments in your closing comments was "... but there are always exceptions, for example, the 1950s Indy 500s ...". In reality, this doesn't seem to be an exception at all: all the Indy 500s are named within the same convention as the other races (i.e. "[Year] [Name of the race]"). Please note that in your closing argument you misconstrued what you thought the convention was ("[Year] [Location] Grand Prix") vs. what it actually is ("[Year] [Name of the race]"). "Name of the race" for most races indeed includes the "Grand Prix" part – so your hunch on what the convention was was understandable. But if you consider the actual convention ("[Year] [Name of the race]") you can see that all articles about the World Championship races until 2020 (including Indy 500, for which "Name of the race" is "Indianapolis 500") fall neatly into this pattern without exception – and the first and only exception (unnecessarily) created was the 70th Anniversary GP in 2020. cherkash (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with the consistency argument, actually, but it's not a wholly controlling argument, and there are a few arguments that I had to weigh when closing the move request. Like I mentioned in the close, the discussion swung rather hard towards removing the year after the FIA's classification of the race came out, and I didn't feel comfortable declaring a consensus to move that clearly wasn't there. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, after re-reading that discussion, only one person mentioned the FIA's classification of the race. And even in that case it was simply not true that the classification for the 70th Anniversary GP omits the year: all official names of the GPs include "2020" in the name, this GP not being an exception: "Emirates Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix 2020", which is right there in the official race classification. The rest of the editors who were opposed focused on the possibility or impossibility of there being another 70th Anniversary GP in the future – which is where the majority of the discussion went. You failed to mention this "crystal ball" line of arguments in your closing remarks. This line was dominant in the discussion by the way – along with some claims that "70th Anniversary" somehow already identifies the year (it implies it, yes, but only in the presence of other non-trivial knowledge, which mentioning the year directly would not necessitate). The only other non-crystal-ball-related line of arguments was about involving WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE – but then this equally applies to the other 4 one-off Grands Prix in this season (i.e. Styria, Tuscany, Eifel, and Emilia-Romagna), and yet they all have "2020" in the respective article names despite the same brevity/conciseness arguments being equally applicable. So I feel at the end of the day, your summary misrepresented the bulk of the discussion that took place – and your comment above partially confirmed it (as you relied in it on the "race classification" argument which was almost non-existent).


 * So in view of these points, how about we re-open the discussion by summarizing main arguments for and against – and letting more time for people to weigh in? Respectfully, I simply don't see how closing with the summary you created could settle the discussion by addressing all the points raised in a balanced manner. cherkash (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confident there was a consensus for not moving, or at the very least, no consensus to move the article. Like I said, the discussion swung hard towards not moving after the race, and I don't think reopening will change the direction of the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your comments. We may have to re-visit at some point, when recentism is no longer such a big factor ;) cherkash (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Martin
Hello. Would you please consider reverting your move of Glenn Martin (coach) and reopening and relisting the RM, especially since you moved it to a title other than the original proposal without any explanation? With only two commenters, including me, I don't see how anyone could say there was a consensus for that move, especially when considering the several previous move requests that resulted in the article being titled Glenn Martin (coach). The title you chose is especially bad because this person was affiliated with multiple sports, with baseball possibly predominant, as discussed in previous RMs. I'm also moving back Abe Martin (American football) to its former title, as that was contrary to the previous RMs for that article. Station1 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in assuming that you prefer not to reopen the RM? Either way is fine, I just want to know whether to proceed to the next step, probably reopening 's RM at the other article. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to a second RM. There are times in RMs where there's a consensus to move away from a title but no consensus on the title to move it to; see the second Great Replacement RM, which I also closed as a "no prejudice to immediate RM on the deadlocked part". Indeed, if you'd like, I could open that RM for you both. Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the issue is that I think there was no consensus to move away from the old title Glenn Martin (coach) in the first place. Station1 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the (admittedly limited) participation, I didn't see any opposition to "Abe Martin (x)", and the numerical majority plus WP:INCDAB (neither coach is the primary topic) was in favour of double disambiguation. That said, if you'd like, I could always relist it to get a better consensus? Sceptre (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you're willing to do that, that would be ideal. Thanks. I did specifically oppose "Abe Martin (x)" (except "Abe Martin (coach)"). Station1 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Bold close at Parasite (film) - example for all closers
Thank you for following WP:RMCI and WP:CONSENSUS in closing this RM - instead of going by a !vote count you actually weighted !votes based on their basis in policy and guidelines. And you explained the reasoning in detail. Bravo! —В²C ☎ 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The closure was inappropriate because it enforced the exception as the rule even when the local consensus was against it. Even the passage at WP:INCDAB says that "the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation". That threshold was not even met here. Furthermore, part of the opposition was due to recentism, and that was ignored in spite of the film's high-water mark not even a year ago. In essence, all opposition arguments were ignored. Just because Thriller was allowed doesn't mean all second-most-important topics should be more ambiguous. Let me know your response, and I will quote it at WP:MR if needed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is you argued against the rule itself, which you cannot do per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You cannot now say it doesn't mean the increased threshold, because you did not do so at the RM. -- Calidum  15:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a rule. It's an exception to the rule that is becoming the rule itself. With this approach perpetuated even for recent films, that means for any set of secondary-topic films, the newest one will almost always have more page views, so what reason is there to oppose giving it just "(film)"? Based on this judgment, it does not matter that the majority of editors prefer to adhere to disambiguating for clarity, and it does not matter that the film is very recent. For example, with Hot Pursuit (2015 film) and Hot Pursuit (1987 film), what reason is there to not put the 2015 film at Hot Pursuit (film)? It has more page views, and even if many more editors oppose it to adhere to the disambiguation guidelines, just one editor can cite page views to make that move. Furthermore, regarding Parasite, recentism would have definitely been my follow-up opposition stance following my general stance to oppose unnecessary ambiguity. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PDAB is not an exception to any rule. It is a rule, a rule that applies in relatively rare situations. Most PDAB titles don’t have a clear PRIMARYTOPIC. But when they do, it’s not an exception to any rule to recognize this. The Nom and Supporters pointed out the PDAB title was overwhelmingly the primary topic (“over 99%...”) in this case, and that the Best Picture status of the film makes it not just a RECENTISM situation. This point was not even challenged by anyone in Opposition. Therefore, there was clear unanimous consensus about this film being the PRIMARYTOPIC for this PDAB title. Therefore, per PDAB, community consensus favored the move and trumped local consensus opposing the move, opposing based on non policy grounds ignoring the guidance at PDAB. The closer recognized this and acted accordingly. Your hypothetical about Hot Pursuit misses a number of key points including the higher PRIMARYTOPIC standard PDABs must meet and that one editor citing page views is not enough. —В²C ☎ 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an exception to the rule. The rule is to disambiguate. Per WP:ATDAB, "As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia... If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." The editors who opposed moving Parasite were referencing that general rule, whether implicitly or explicitly. There was not an absence of policy in these oppositions, yet the weight of this opposition was completely overlooked by the closing admin. This exception has become a rule in itself that I foresee being abused in film-related articles. The PDAB information page shows a cottage industry of pushing for more ambiguous topics, and Parasite was the first film that you added to that page. WP:NCF specifically states about the Titanic films that all films, even the most famous one, should be disambiguated from each other, since there is already a primary topic. WP:PRECISION lists examples of WikiProjects' naming conventions; see the M-185 example.
 * Furthermore, films are going to be susceptible to this "relatively rare" approach since films are more prolific in today's world than other types of media and are more likely to have Wikipedia articles than books. This means that there will be numerous sets of films with the same title that is rooted in a primary topic, and the newer films will more likely have more page views than the older ones. If you don't like Hot Pursuit as an example, how about Twilight (2008 film) versus all the other Twilight films, all rooted in the primary topic of twilight? If this "rule" continues to be perpetuated, a minority of editors will successfully argue against the general disambiguation policy that after the primary primary topic, we should try to look for a primary-topic film within a set of secondary-topic films and encourage further ambiguity by dropping the release year. It could have been kept so simple to disambiguate fully. Yet this slippery slope is going to introduce us to many more follow-up messy discussions about this kind of thing. Do you really not see that coming? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It used to be quite normal to recognize primary topics among films, until a number of years ago one editor, primarily, (not you) moved a bunch of them. Films, especially, sometimes have one famous film that most people are seeking, along with one or more others that have the same title. It doesn't really make sense to send people to a dab page when they're searching for "Avatar (film)", "Independence Day (film)" or "The Diary of Anne Frank (film)". Sure, it's a minor issue, but it does benefit, however slightly, a small number of readers every day, ~17 in the case of Parasite. Station1 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Titanic wording at WP:NCF has existed for over seven years, so your claim is false. Furthermore, the policy page at WP:PRECISION indicates that Wikipedia projects can set the preference. See the M-185 example, which is disambiguated even though it doesn't have to be. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My claim is not false. A number may be greater than seven. Station1 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t see that coming. PDAB/INCDAB is not new, and it hasn’t happened. I think you underestimate the higher standard that must be met, and your interpretation of “the general rule” is unreasonably pedantic. Yes the (original) preferred title for the film is Predator, but given its lack of availability, the preferred title for this article becomes Predator (film). It is to this preferred title that we apply the rule: “... when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia... If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used...” And this article IS about the PRIMARYTOPIC of this preferred title, so the ambiguous Predator (film) CAN be used as its title. That is the point of PDAB which you keep ignoring. That said, I see room for clarifying the implication of PDAB in the wording of the general rule. —В²C ☎ 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I am not seeing how you're deriving "Predator (film)" as a real-world query. I see queries like "predator film" and "predator movie" as real-world, and I get and support the proper redirects of these terms to the Wikipedia article. Any query with disambiguation terms isn't real-world and is only going to be used by editors deeply familiar with Wikipedia, not the average reader. I think that's why editors can't see the uselessness of the gesture of making it more ambiguous. We have all these tools, redirects and hatnotes, to guide the readers along while still implementing Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation for all secondary topics. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I (or anyone else) is “deriving ‘Predator (film)’ as a real-world query”? I admit the argument for PDAB PRIMARYTOPICs is weaker than for basename PRIMARYTOPICs, primarily due to PDABs being unlikely queries, but that’s partly why the threshold needs to be higher for PDABs. And that’s a valid argument against INCDAB/PDAB in general. But neither here nor the Predator (film) talk page is the place for that discussion. The close was based on existing policy/guidelines, which includes INCDAB which references PDAB. That said, I personally think consensus in an RM can go against policy, but participants needed to explicitly invoke IAR and clearly explain their reasoning for going against guidelines. I explained my reasoning for that years ago in my FAQ at User:Born2cycle/FAQ, but that position is not held by many if not most RM closers. —В²C ☎ 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what I was going to say was already said by B2C. It's one argument that the primality test for partial disambiguation wasn't met, but the test in itself wasn't argued in the move discussion; the argument was over whether partial disambiguation is a good thing or not. As I've said, that's irrelevant to the move request, and can't be decided in a move request, so while well-intentioned, don't really add much weight to argument not to move.
 * As to the whether the pageview figures could be skewed by recentism: page views for Best Picture winners tend to be about 2–4,000 per day, tailing off with age, but even a film such as, say, Amadeus (1983 Best Picture) gets 2,000 views per day. While recentism was a concern I took into account, ultimately I found that argument to be not compelling enough to not move the film. Sceptre (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. My concern with the RM discussion that it seemed self-evident that editors were reinforcing the disambiguation policy. Just because one can engage in incomplete disambiguation does not mean we are compelled to do so. As aforementioned, this is the first film to be moved under that exception framework. We've had seven years' worth of secondary-topic films like Titanic being disambiguated from each other, and it has been a complete non-issue to have that arrangement. So beg my pardon when I ask, why does disambiguation policy need to be overridden here?
 * In any case, it sounds like WP:MR will not be the best venue because the arguments favoring disambiguation were not fleshed out enough, right? So is the proper next step to start a new RM discussion with a new clearer set of counterpoints? Or pursue WP:MR anyway? I ask about proper procedure outside this particular issue. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, a new RM soon after another one for the same article was closed is frowned upon. They’re subject to being SNOW closed. There are exceptions. New evidence can be an acceptable reason for a new RM. Whether a new argument is good enough reason to start a new RM I’m not sure. I can’t find published guidance for this situation. —В²C ☎ 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any written "rule", but generally 6 months is considered a rule of thumb before reopening a RM absent special circumstances. A request to revert a recently closed RM usually goes to Move Review. Station1 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve tweaked the wording of the general disambiguation rule at WP:AT to explicitly incorporate PDAB:
 * If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated, which may be only an “incomplete disambiguation” (a disambiguated title that remains ambiguous) if the article is the primary topic for that incompletely disambiguated title. See also the partial disambiguation information page.

However, I hasten to add that the previous wording already incorporated INCDAB implicitly because of linking “disambiguated” to WP:D which includes INCDAB (and refers to PDAB). But with my tweaks it’s more clear. —В²C ☎ 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that you are the closer of Thriller and now this, both of which ignored both numerical and policy-based arguments which should have clearly left the result as "No consensus", it seems to me that these closes seek to implement a particular agenda on your part to see PDAB implemented using much softer requirements. I advise you to reverse this close. -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * relitigating against an RfC at a place which can't overturn an RfC isn't a "policy-based argument" at all. If you feel that strongly about the partial disambiguation guidelines, then you're more than welcome to open an RfC to change them. My role as closer of both of those RMs were to assess whether there was a consensus that the PDAB primality test was met; any arguments about the PDAB guideline should apply were irrelevant to that determination, because RM is not the place to argue that. Sceptre (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PDAB was ostensibly accepted only because there was to be a "high bar" for such exceptions to our normal rules. Your close here against the obvious numerical and policy-based reasons that Paradise does not meet a "high bar" is the problem. Your close inserts your personal opinion on the matter, overriding the views of the participants. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody who was opposing the move argued that the "high bar" wasn't met; they were opposing the entire concept of partial disambiguation entirely. That's not an argument against an RM; that's an argument for an RfC. Sceptre (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is also being currently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). I feel we should just pick one place. El Millo (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Parasite (2019 film)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Parasite (2019 film). 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. Netoholic @ 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello
User:Sceptre Please can you move these pages Bigg Boss Bangla and Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 Bigg Boss Kannada as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:64:8013:400:8bb7:9726:cb47 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌: I notice a RM has already been opened; I don't want to forestall it. Sceptre (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry
I recognise you tried hard to blow away the chaff, but I cannot read the review discussion any way other than Overturn. I have included an extended rationale in my close. Sorry, I recognise that you did your best in the face of some pretty dogmatic arguments at the RM. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19
Hi, any chance you could relist the discussion? It's been something I've been considering proposing myself for a while, but in this case I completely missed it. I'd have thought with !votes and arguments so split, it at least merits another week of relisting to thrash out what's really going on? As for my opinion on the matter, six months ago I would have thought it ridiculous to move to "COVID-19", but at this stage I would definitely argue the contrary if I have a chance to do so in the RM. It's now become so overwhelmingly the term used evedrywhere, that I don't think MOS:ACRO really applies. Like NASA, the article should be housed at the acronym because nobody ever says "Coronavirus disease 2019". Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Typically, the way I make a decision on whether to close or to relist depends on whether a) there has been enough participation and b) relisting has a possibility of finding a consensus. I can count 25 editors in the discussion, and the general ebb and flow of the discussion was that it was heading towards a deadlock regardless of how long it was kept open. I don't think it likely that keeping it open for another week would see a consensus emerge; if anything, I think it would further entrench the lack of consensus. I could amend it to a no consensus move – it's on the borderline of "no consensus to move" and "consensus not to move" – but I don't think relisting would give a result that's functionally different to the one I gave. Sceptre (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you've done a great job with RMs, but I disagree with this one. While some diseases (like SARS, MERS and the flu) use the full name, it was pointed out that others like HIV and polio (along with other biological terms like DNA and RNA) use the acronyms or a shortened name. Because of that, WP:COMMONNAME should have been the only real consideration along with WP:CONSISTENT (with the pandemic article). -- Calidum  15:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Presence.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:The Presence.ogg. 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) 18:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy
Hello! Your submission of 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Although your DYK nom was approved, the wording of the DYK hook is being discussed. Your input is requested. (note: the article has been renamed to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination)   JGHowes   talk  18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Coronavirus disease 2019
An editor has asked for a Move review of Coronavirus disease 2019. 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. -- Calidum 01:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User category
hi Sceptre

Your userpage is categorised in Category:Wikipedians who use Safari, which has recently been moved to Category:Wikipedians who use Safari (web browser) .. leaving your page alone in the category, contrary to WP:REDNOT.

This appears to be implemented via User:Sceptre/modules/Userpage.css, which is protected. Please can you fix it?

Thanks -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"七" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 七. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Keep up the good work! --73.202.53.15 (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Mistake.
Howdy. I wasn't aware of the embarrassing results of the RMs, which call for the page moves of the 2020 US Senate election & special election in Georgia. You'll have to undo my reversion, as I don't have the tools to do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: FWIW - I can't for the life of me, see where such a consensus to move in that RM, exists. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
I popped back in to see the status of the renaming discussion for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but I see you closed it, and it's now archived at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 3. You mention a "moratorium", but I see no mention of a mortarium on the main talk page. There was a previous renaming, and the discussion at AN that lead to the early closure is at WP:AN where the discussion appears to be that it wasn't eligible for a SNOW close, though that doing an interim move and allowed for a more focused round of discussion on further changes. However, you are blocking the more focused discussion. Normally I'd argue there is no rush, but as the word "storm" seems to be an insurrectionist code word, then surely there should be an immediate discussion of this issue? (and perhaps there have been other discussions of this ... the debate seem to have been extensive since last time I looked). Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

NEW USERBOX!
Hi Sceptre, I found you in the Category:Redirectionist Wikipedians. You may like the new userbox User redirectionist. Have fun! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review
I disagree with your closing. We need to let the process play out until the community can decide on a title. I plan on taking it to move review, if you do not revert.Casprings (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021 .--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary 8
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit to one of your talk pages
Please see Requests for page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

FLCR for List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User category
Please would you edit User:Sceptre/modules/boxes.css and update User en-gb to User en-GB ? Your user page is currently populating Category:User en-gb, which was moved per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_4. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Fillmore!.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fillmore!.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) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide move
The Requested Move of the page Uyghur Genocide actually had a weak consensus to move the page (10 users supported the move, 8 opposed and 1 weak oppose). Can you enlighten me with the reason why you decided to close the discussion and in turn push the ruling in favor of the minority? Dazaif (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Move discussions are not a vote; they're a discussion, and in closing the discussion, I have to weigh up the arguments and compare to policy before coming to a conclusion. A 10:9 majority isn't enough in its own to result in a consensus to move, and the existence of the moratorium on move requests, as well as several probable single-purpose accounts being (almost entirely) in favour of the move, led me to the conclusion that there still isn't a consensus for moving and, unless something major happens, probably won't be for some time. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Closing RM discussions
You closed RM discussions Talk:George Russell (racing driver) and Talk:Gregory Helms in contrast with Talk:Uyghur genocide. I point out two. 1. Please remove the requested move/dated. 2. Please sign your posts. Thanks. Sawol (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You close of 1989 Tiananmen Square protests RM
In your close of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests requested move, there is no consensus to move. the !votes are nearly evenly split with one more oppose than support; a clear no consensus outcome. Your closing statement does not address this at all, and reads more like a supervote. A no consensus close would have been appropriate, though it would have been better left for an admin, being a contentious topic. You also failed to add a to the close.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:48B8:DB9F:123D:B5B0 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at mobe review.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:CD90:53D0:5B76:9D48 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sceptre is an experienced editor who I would support for RFA. There was nothing wrong with this close. –– FormalDude  talk  04:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Bryan Danielson Redirect
I am really new to wikipedia and still reading up on policies and such, but I noticed, on the Bryan Danielson page someone reinstated the redirect, does that mess with the speedy deletion process and making the move happen? I apologize if I am bothering you OmniusM (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nvm another person went and took care of it. I a sorry for bothering you. OmniusM (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Page move: Sexual slavery in Islam
Hi Sceptre,

I am following WP:MR and I am bringing this discussion to your Talk Page. You have recently moved Sexual slavery in Islam to History of concubinage in the Muslim world, but there is clearly no consensus for that (8 votes in favor of the new title, against plenty of alternatives and 8 votes explicitly against the new title, including that of one admin, – other editors were Grufo,, , , , ,.

According to WP:RMNAC,

"Non-admin closes normally require that:
 * The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).
 * No more than a few associated subpages need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talkpage archives. (Administrators and page movers have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click.)"

Both points are were not met in your non-admin closure, so I would like to ask you to review your decision or explain here what brought you to move the page despite the necessary requirements were missing. --Grufo (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think experience is the key thing, and Sceptre is an experienced closer who has closed contentious discussions before.VR talk 19:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it is appropriate to argue against this on the basis of it being a NAC; there is nothing wrong with NAC's, and Spectre is an experienced editor.
 * However, I would agree with Grufo that the decision was in general slightly erroneous, as I am struggling to understand your process of separating the move into two sections and trying to determine the consensus for each, as it produced the odd result where people explicitly opposing the title you moved the article to were counted in favour of part of the move to this title - this seems like a process more appropriate for a close where there is a consensus against the current title, but there is no consensus in favour of a new title.
 * I'm also trying to understand how you resolved the consensus for each part; could you provide a little more information on how you weighted the various arguments? BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the "History of X in the Muslim world" part. From my reading of the discussion only two users explicitly opposed "History of X in the Muslim world" title format (Grufo and Andrewa), an additional voter (usernamekiran) opposed the "Muslim world" part without opposing the "History of X" part. But 10 users (including BilledMammal) supported the "History of X in the Muslim world" format, with two of them citing a policy (WP:CONSISTENCY). Even if you count only those who supported "History of concubinage in the Muslim world", that's 8 explicit supports vs 3 explicit opposes, where the supports cite policy and the opposes don't. That's clear consensus to me.VR talk 01:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This was pretty much my thought process; discussions aren't a vote-counting exercise, and definitely are not run via FPTP. The process of closing any move discussion is pretty much the same – is there a consensus to move, and what title should it be moved to? – but this is one of the discussions where those questions can't be tackled at the same time. There was a clear consensus for a "history of X in the Muslim world" move, and then a weaker, but in my opinion still persuasive, consensus for the use of "concubinage" on its own; while I accept and sympathise that using "concubinage" on its own is a form of euphemism, there wasn't anything in the discussion that rebutted the argument that it was also the term used in most sources. Sceptre (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would split the discussion into three main points
 * Using “concubinage” instead of “sexual slavery”
 * Using “in the Muslim world” instead of “in Islam”
 * Using “History of ...”
 * Using “History of ...” was the least discussed point, but there was some controversy, while points #1 and #2 were highly controversial and received strong oppositions. As for how many sources use “concubinage” instead of “sexual slavery”, we don't know exactly the numbers, Google Scholar shows that we are within the same order of magnitude (3,200 hits for “sexual slavery” against 6,020 hits for “concubinage”), and as per WP:QUALIFIER we don't choose on the basis of popularity if we can favor natural disambiguation, especially when we don't really know what the most “popular term” as the qualifier is. --Grufo (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you yourself presented a table during the RM (anchor) that showed "concubine"/"concubinage" with 16,220 hits (10,200+6,020) vs 3,200 for "sexual slavery". From a RM point of view, that's quite significant.
 * Secondly, google evidence is often not the best as it includes lots of false hits (many hits are on an entirely different topic, with the search terms appearing only incidentally). A stronger piece of evidence was a table of 22 scholarly works on this topic (anchor) 100% of which favor the term "concubinage". I presented this table 6 times, and at no point was its accuracy disputed. I also presented an addition 15 sources (anchor), some with quotes, that show the article's subject is called concubines. That's 37 sources in total vs perhaps not a single source that the oppose votes provided. I close RMs all the time, and I rarely such a huge mountain of evidence.VR talk 13:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RM of Joondalup railway line
You closed the RM at Talk:Joondalup railway line as not moved without further explanation. What is the reason that you didn't move these pages? The vast majority didn't object the removal of the word railway and those who opposed the move did so because of the capitalization. The variant Joondalup line was one that the majority could agree on. --PhiH (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any consensus for any move, to be honest, whether it be "Line" (capitalised) or "line" (not). Sceptre (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that it wasn't completely clear. For some reason the discussion focused on the capitalization issue which meant that several editors opposed the RM although they would support the removal of the word railway or didn't comment on it at all. Unfortunately, now this means that the old title has remained which is the worst option as there was only one person who actively supported it. What is the correct procedure now? Is it possible to start a new RM to confirm that we can agree on the compromise without the capital L? --PhiH (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't object to a new RM on that basis; a new RM also makes determining consensus a lot more simpler for the next closer. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RM reopen request
Could you please consider reopening Talk:River Butcher and reverting the moves you made in consequence of the close?

The close seems to be based on your applying WP:DEADNAME. But the closer is not at liberty to add new arguments of their own. See wp:closing.

My suggestion is that having reopened the RM, you then !vote to move, citing this new argument. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ironically, the thing that makes me minded to stand by my close is your reply in the RM; there's no point twiddling our thumbs waiting for the inevitable. The anon user providing relevant evidence (both Butcher's tweet and secondary sources) was also helpful in closing the discussion, which defanged the arguments in opposition to the move (including your own). For what it's worth, my comment about DEADNAME was more a reiteration of longstanding (and rather vigorous) consensus than an argument of my own. Although the name-change isn't as drastic as many others, our policies in this area still apply, and leaving the discussion open another week (or, god forbid, an even longer move review discussion) would be in violation of the spirit of the rule. Sceptre (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply, but I think then I should raise it at MR. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Move review for River Butcher
An editor has asked for a Move review of River Butcher. 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. Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Kyiv Day and Night move
The page "Kiev Day and Night" was moved to Kyiv Day and Night with majority vote directed by latter editors except. Depending on vote rationale, the editor who opened the move discussion (Exlevan) must fully sure his decision on the move, but later becomes ambivalent by saying "I'll leave it up to the closer to decide whether this constitutes a proper English source" after I added an English source that supports Kiev Day and Night. In this case, the move should be revoked because Exlevan doesn't show outright support. Regardless of Kyiv/Kiev consensus, we are in English Wikipedia and words should use in English language usage. So, as I flagged an English source still exists in the article, reference is very important to support each statement, but the existence of this source is unimportant when the article moved to Kyiv. Thus, I considered this situation unfair judgement. Accordingly, I want to restore Kiev. What do you think? The Supermind (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That source appears to be an automated spam-blog more than anything. Like I said in the close, there's very little in the way of English secondary sources to help decide; what does help, however, is the use of Київ over Киев. Sceptre (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was supporting and still support the move. The reason I left that comment is that I've already addressed another machine-translated source in the nomination statement, and didn't want to have to repeat myself. Exlevan (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Newsbeezer is reliable source and the highlight text appeared as evident for assertion. The Supermind (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper under FA review
Hello. I started FA review on D. B. Cooper. You participated in original FAC subpage, so I invite you for input there. --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Hi Sceptre. Please do not mark edits as minor which add new content, or especially which re-add removed content, as you did in this edit. The edit summary was similarly misleading as most of your edit couldn't be described as copyediting. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent close at China COVID-19 cover up (allegations)
This close raises WP:SUPERVOTE concerns. Your stated reason that the article is, in your opinion, "terrible" is not a summary of the discussion. Nor is your assertion that it is a "coatrack". Furthermore, you stated without evidence that "experienced editors" are "almost all" voting one way. As a starting point for discussion, I am requesting that you do an analysis of the edit counts of users who voted each way. If your analysis does not back up your statement, you might want to reconsider. Lastly, your nomination at AfD is further evidence that you have a strong opinion about the article. As you are aware, a discussion closer should be neutral. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming here from the article talk page. I think "terrible" is a reasonable summary of some of the points made: CPCEnjoyer said so fairly directly, and other editors indicated there being issues with speculation in the article. I read the 'coatrack' statement in context as being an evaluation of the arguments posed by some supporters, an assertion that they relied on opinions about China instead of policy-based reasoning related to this specific article's subject. And Sceptre didn't make a claim about "experience editors", but about "experienced editors who probably came across this discussion at RM". I am unsure if the claim is correct. Firefangledfeathers 21:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of how to decide how anyone came to a particular discussion. At any rate, I'm certain Sceptre would not make such an assertion without a factual basis. He or she must have done some analysis to come to this conclusion. In the name of transparency, he or she should share the analysis. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of how to decide how anyone came to a particular discussion. It would be reasonable to assume if editors have never participated in the topic or adjacent articles, that they likely came across it via RM. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article is less about an encyclopedic look at how China has handled the pandemic, and more about throwing any criticism at the wall and seeing what sticks. I think the article is fundamentally flawed to the point it should be deleted, but even if it isn't, the previous article title (and article itself at the moment) implies some sort of vast conspiracy in the Chinese government as solid fact, which is such a flagrant violation of NPOV that frankly anything is justified to remedy it. If you want a laundry list of reasons why China is bad, you can read The Epoch Times, but this is an encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are simply unaware of the smoking gun source? We have official CCP documents threatening "harsh punishment" for anyone who shares info without authorization. No conspiracy required. It's all there in black and white. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This entire conversation is off the rails. Closure reviews are about whether or not the close was an accurate summary of the arguments made. Everything else is irrelevant. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, let' get it back on the rails. Sceptre, are you going to share with us your analysis by which you reached your "telling" determination that "experienced editors who probably came across this discussion at RM" are "all" voting a particular way? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I trust the judgment of editors such as, , , , , et al – who I've encountered multiple times on the encyclopedia and seen they have decent judgment (even if I disagree with them at times!) – more than people with only a few hundred edits (if that) who haven't edited outside some of the more contentious articles in the COVID-19 article space. Perhaps I was wrong to say all experienced editors went one way – see , , and as three rather editors who opposed the move – but the discussion was littered with people who want to right the great wrongs of Wikipedia claiming a zoonotic origin of COVID when it was so obviously Xi personally sequencing a virus that is simultaneously fake news, can be cured with horse dewormer, and bioweapon which brainwashes people with cotton masks. As a closer, my role is to sift through the arguments, discard the ones not based in policy, and weigh the ones which are policy based. The weight was firmly in favour of moving. Sceptre (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's a straw man if there ever was one. If you are equating believing there is some degree of doubt with thinking that ivermectin can cure COVID there's some clear signs of bias here. So is saying "this is a terrible article" in the close statement. I also wasn't aware that experience was the only requisite for deciding things in Wikipedia. Whether I am experienced or not, the strength of the arguments should win.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it helps that the arguments against moving were, for the most part, not going to shown on Channel 5 this Christmas. I did check the edit histories of some of the more transparent "China bad" editors, and the articles about ivermectin and the lab leak theory were also frequented by them. Like I said, if people want to argue about the efficacy of ivermectin, they should go to the comment sections of The Epoch Times, not Wikipedia talk pages. Sceptre (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I also trust, who hasn't ever accused me of being part of a WP:CABAL to WP:RGW. As a closer, you should have looked at ProcrastinatingReader's argument about the Cambridge dictionary's definition of a cover-up and weighed it against the arguments from LondonIP about International Health Regulations and mine about Wildlife smuggling as the serious crimes or mistake that China may be covering up (on the origins question). As a closer, you should have summarized the difference between the outbreak cover-up and the origins cover-up in the discussion, and in the article. Where are we going to the AP leaked documents "game of chess"? It doesn't fit into misinformation. Please undo your close and read the discussion properly. Francesco espo (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please self-revert your recent closure regarding the China and a COVID-19 coverup
Specter, with all due respect, I cannot understand the justification you’ve written on your talk page above. Simply having a high edit count or having been on Wikipedia for a while doesn’t make one’s arguments automatically stronger—consensus is not ascertained by counting heads of experienced users, but instead by evaluating the strength of all the arguments presented in light of WP:PAG.

The particular part about WP:COATRACK also befuddles me. Wouldn’t this be a reason to limit the scope of the article to when RS report that an actual cover-up occurred, rather than changing the scope of the acticle to include every single allegation of a Chinese COVID-19 coverup that has been reported on by a reliable source or two?

I had examined the discussion and I had thought about closing it, but decided against it for reasons of not having time to write out a four-paragraph no-consensus-to-move close. But I really do not understand how that discussion resulted in an affirmative consensus to move. I would respectfully request that you undo your closure and either allow further discussion for seven additional days (to make consensus more clear) or to allow a panel to close it. If not, I would be happy to open a move review as an uninvolved page mover who did not participate in the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert the closure. The entire article is a walking NPOV violation, never mind the old title, and I'm very disinclined to give any quarter to conspiracy theorists engaged in disruptive editing. Sceptre (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * there's already a Administrators'_noticeboard discussion open. Firefangledfeathers 00:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sceptre, I'd like to bring another issue with the closure to your attention. I'll put an excerpt from WP:CLOSING at the end of this post. The excerpt is on the topic of when to close a discussion. My question for you is -- based on the stated criteria, do you believe the discussion was stable? The excerpt is:
 * When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take.  Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a fair amount of repetition at that point. Regardless, this will all be moot when the AfD closes in favor of the WP:SNOW towards merge/deletion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , the article is currently at AfD where consensus seems to be emerging to either redirect it to "COVID-19 misinformation by China" or to rename it to "Chinese government response to COVID-19". I don't think there is much appetite for the previous title "China COVID-19 cover-up" as it is regarded as a WP:POVNAME.VR talk 03:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Quail Island
Regarding this move request, you closed it as "move" but I found Quail Island (New Zealand) sitting there under its old disambiguation. I assumed this was an omission and have moved (swapped) it myself. Just in case there's something that I overlooked, here's a heads up.  Schwede 66  00:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a protection issue that’s been fixed now. Thank you! Sceptre (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Move review for History of concubinage in the Muslim world
An editor has asked for a Move review of History of concubinage in the Muslim world. 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. Grufo (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Move review for China COVID-19 cover-up allegations
An editor has asked for a Move review of China COVID-19 cover-up allegations. 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.

My apologies for the late notification. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:High Speed 3
Template:High Speed 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkers requested move
It looks like the history for Checkers has now been merged into Draughts, so you can complete the move now. Thanks. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Inter Milan
Your close decision is risible. You have allowed yourself to be duped by a bunch of football fanatics with a narrow view of the world. Nothing material has changed in the period covered by 5 previous declined requests. This was always likely to be controversial - maybe it should have been closed by an experienced Admin. And before you kick-off and make PA accusations, I have read your user page headline. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've been "duped" at all, and it's pretty rude of you to be casting aspersions on me. The previous move requests have always been within the closer's discretion. As I pointed out in my closure, there are plenty of cases where NCST has taken precedence on a pure reading of COMMONNAME, involving four teams Serie A where the titles are at the full name instead of the shorter common name. That, to me, reflects a more wider consensus on how to deal with football team articles, which is why NCST still stands as a naming convention. Additionally, whilst "Inter Milan" is most likely the most commonly used name for the club, the use of "Internazionale" or just "Inter" makes the COMMONNAME argument more murky than you'd first think. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CONLEVEL is a policy, not a minor guideline. The same editors have angled for this without producing a relevant policy or material weight of evidence in English speaking sources (another policy) in support of their change. Instead they have used a rather minor guideline to influence an ill-judged close. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions are not "minor guidelines"; they're specific guidelines that detail how we apply the article titles policy. In some cases, naming conventions may, and do, allow for deviations from a purist (and incorrect) reading of COMMONNAME, like how we use influenza instead of flu. COMMONNAME does not say "you must use the most common name", it says "it's generally preferred to use the most common name as it tends to be the best way to satisfy WP:CRITERIA, but there are times when we might not". Adherence to a naming convention is an acceptable deviation; otherwise, there wouldn't be naming conventions at all. Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi Sceptre

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how you would see a consensus to move from the discussion in question. There are two competing policy arguments, and roughly equal voices in each direction, so that is a textbook "no consensus". Please could you reconsider? I didn't !vote in the discussion, but I have participated in previous discussions and am firmly opposed to the move that has been made. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to state that I was quite surprised to see the RfM closed as a consensus to move. I voted no, so I have that bias, but the closure seems not to align with the statements and the votes. I know it is not a vote count, but 7 oppose to 6 support without any indication of one side having a substantially stronger argument hardly seems like a consensus to move.--Cerebral726 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the close, before closing, I was sure that the consensus would be to not move the article, as the argument that "Inter Milan" is the common name is a persuasive one. But as I read the discussion, I found that the arguments in favour of moving more persuasive. It's not just enough to do a drive-by "per X" argument in any discussion; you have to justify it. COMMONNAME is one of the most misunderstood policies on the encyclopedia: it doesn't say that you must use a COMMONNAME, no matter what; it says that, in most cases, the most commonly used name is the most appropriate one. There are plenty of edge cases, and those in support of the move were much more persuasive that this article is indeed one, with plenty of specific examples (e.g. other Serie A clubs, Los Angeles FC, Sporting CP) that the global consensus in the matter (as laid out at NCST) points to using "F.C. Internazionale Milano". Sceptre (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the Opposes were thought out reasonable arguments and have valid standpoints on COMMONNAME. My understanding is that closures should reflect the consensus of the discussion. If you wanted to make policy arguments, would it not have been better to contribute to that discussion, instead of closing it with what you interpret as the minority but stronger argument? The balance of arguments for either side seems like they were enough in the grey area that making that decision falls outside of a consensus to move. --Cerebral726 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's one thing to discount votes in one direction or the other if they're clearly and unambiguously misaligned with policy. In this case, however, your take that WP:COMMONNAME is overruled was opposed by a majority of those present. Your take is that it is overruled, but those seven said it was not overruled, and it's certainly not unambiguous. My experience is that in general the common name does take precedence over consistency, particularly in cases like this one where the name chosen is very much more common than the alternative in English sources, as appears to be the case here. Finally, your discounting of "per X" votes has no basis in the guidelines or conventions as far as I'm aware. Such votes have always been accepted in discussions, and insofar as a discussion is to some extent a vote, those count equally with any other valid point made. Hopefully if you look at the discussion again, you will agree with myself and Cerebral726 that a "consensus to move" can't really be drawn from that, and then you can either relist and restate your points as a !vote, or reclose as "no consensus". Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In closing any discussion, as you should well know as an administrator, we don't just count votes; we weigh the arguments. A "Per COMMONNAME" argument without an attempt at justification is the bane of the RM process, and makes the job of any closer much more difficult (because, as I've said before, it's one of the most misunderstood policies on the encyclopedia). From reading the discussion, the argument that we should not deviate from the practice of NCST was much more persuasive and controlling than the argument "it's the common name, and that's the end of that". The third move discussion at Talk:Los Angeles FC re-iterated that much more general consensus that NCST takes precedence in these situations – which a sole RM can't, in typical circumstances, overturn – literally hours before. Sceptre (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But surely "Per COMMONNAME" should be perfectly acceptable when the first reference to COMMONNAME as a policy justification is fully expounded - which in this case it was. Otherwise it would be repetition, as in the case of the NCST supports? Leaky caldron (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor who happens to have this page of their watchlist for another few days, I would agree with caldron here; "Per COMMONNAME" is an acceptable argument when it is not disputed that a certain name is the commonname. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. And WP:COMMONNAME isn't really misunderstood, except perhaps that sometimes people assume it means the common name among the public rather than in sources. But that doesn't apply here, since sources also use the previous title. The text of COMMONNAME says that WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" and then goes on to say that "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly" (emphasis mine). In this case, however, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the various RMs on this topic, there is a single name which is demonstrably the most frequently used, and that is "Inter Milan", so the caveat to COMMONNAME doesn't apply. It's not an edge case which requires more careful consideration. And certainly, as you say, we don't just count votes, but that's not the same as saying we ignore the tally altogether when you have two sides making points which are in line with policy. Here you have a slight majority of participants opposing a move, all citing a valid and linked policy, whose conditions are met, and there is simply no way to arrive at the conclusion that a consensus to move exists here. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Morning, just to say that I will be starting a move review for this page later today. I had really hoped to avoid a MRV through this discussion with either my becoming convinced of your rationale, or you rethinking the close, but as that hasn't happened, and I think it's clear that the policy arguments mentioned above don't support the close you made, I will have to challenge it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply; after thinking about it yesterday, I was minded to revert it to a no consensus closure because this discussion is more heat than fire, and it was a marginal close. However, because the page is move-protected (and despite it making sense, non-admins with the page mover right can't override move protection), would you be willing to move it back once I change the close? Sceptre (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll be happy to make the move, just let me know when it's time. And thank you for your consideration of this issue. No doubt some who argued for the move will be annoyed, but I think given the discussion a no consensus is correct. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the persuasive argument and the willingness to revise the decision, not always an easy thing to do. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Surely all of the above discussion shows the original decision to move the article to Inter Milan years ago was the wrong one? It was based on misleading information and the arguments were no different to this time. The correct decision is to return the article to the title it had when it was first created, not this ridiculous, inconsistent title. – PeeJay 13:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Really disappointing to see you harassed into reversing a good decision (I think it's more than fair enough to judge that consistency with hundreds of other articles is a stronger argument that COMMONNAME). Like the yogurt situation, the RMs will now just continue to be made until consistency is achieved; in the meantime, this just remains an open sore... Number   5  7  22:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Pākehā settlers RM
Regarding your close of this RM, you state that "The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English". However, that is not my reading of the discussion; several editors, including myself, disagreed with the claim that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English, and there was no evidence presented for the claim that it is the commonly used term, while there was evidence presented against that claim; could you clarify how you assessed this consensus?

I would also note that you don't address the WP:COMMONALITY exception to WP:ENGVAR; could you clarify how you considered this? BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There were enough people in favour of the current title – more than in favour of supporting the move – with comments that alluded to the use of the term in New Zealand English for me to surmise its commonality of the term therein. In any case, there's certainly not a consensus to move based on what the commonly used term in New Zealand English is. Indeed, from a cursory glance of the Google Scholar (and, to a lesser extent, Google News) results shows a level of usage of the term "Pākehā" even in the "European settlers" search results.
 * Secondly, regarding COMMONALITY, I think you're misunderstanding what it says. The article titles policy is unambiguous that where there are strong national ties to a subject – and it's not disputed that there such ties here – that we should use that national variant of English, even if the terms don't have commonality elsewhere. Even so, the de facto application of COMMONALITY where strong national ties are concerned is that the globally used terms are used for explanation but are not preferred over the national use. A search for the term "crore" is very illuminating on this. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference is between claims without evidence - which I understand should be given minimal weight - to claims with evidence. Regarding your review of the evidence, I believe those objections should have been brought up as part of the discussion, rather than being used by the closer without discussion, but I will note that excluding all articles that mention "Pākehā" reduce the results for Google News (New Zealand only) from 72 to 59, and for Google Scholar from 804 to 663, which still supports the notion that the common name is "European settlers".
 * Regarding COMMONALITY, I don't see the misunderstanding; COMMONALITY is itself unambiguous that we should use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. In this case, that would be "European settlers", which is accepted inside and outside New Zealand, compared to "Pākehā", which is only used in New Zealand - and even in New Zealand the evidence suggests that the preferred name is "European settlers".
 * My main point is that I am struggling to see how you found a consensus against the move, given that there are comparable numbers for and against it, and those for the move presented evidence to support their position, while those against failed to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to confirm that you do not intend to reply to this? BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time, I didn't have anything to add. I notice there's now another RM, which I'm keeping an eye on to see what the result will be. Sceptre (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming; I still believe the move was improper, as it weighted arguments without evidence over arguments with evidence, so I will open a move review. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Pākehā settlers
An editor has asked for a Move review of Pākehā settlers. 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. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Gregory Hemingway
I would like you to reconsider your closure of this move discussion. Your reference to BLP (which wasn't mentioned at all in the discussion), give it the appearance of a supervote. Also, you said "MOS:GENDERID is the overriding policy, not WP:COMMONNAME", but MOS:GENDERID is a guideline not a policy. Perhaps you could just make your comments into a !vote. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm, a quote from a previously cited guideline for your edification:
 * WP:GENDERID: "Why does Wikipedia refer to people according to their gender self-identification?"


 * Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and on 9 April 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution urging that special attention be paid to neutrality, verifiability and human dignity. As Wikipedia's article on the subject explains, "gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender." We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value. To do otherwise — to refer to transgender or non-binary/genderqueer people by names or pronouns which disregard their gender identities, i.e. to misgender them — is deeply offensive and causes harm``
 * I believe that both WP:GENDERID and respecting her in death were both points raised in the discussion. Not to mention respecting trans people's identities out of basic dignity seems a re-occurring theme in all guidelines relating to trans people's names. Handy how those can all be ignored. In fact, while not explicitly drawing the connection, I did bring up the point that being misnamed in death happened often and was something many trans people fear.
 * From WP:POVNAMING: "The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. "
 * Also, does WP:AT (an overriding policy, a distinction you like to make) not say:'
 * In the opening, "This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page does not detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. "
 * WP:COMMONNAME: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. "
 * WP:NAMECHANGE: "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." (I think we established that of the 188 articles on google scholar using "Gregory Hemingway", 170 use Gloria Hemingway as well)
 * See also WP:SPNC, which links to MOS:GENDERID


 * WP:MOSAT: "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. "


 * Getting back to a policy all of these agree on, WP:VERIFY, I'm pretty sure we verified her last identification was as Gloria, she considered herself a woman, and even if we weren't looking at her final identification she went out as Gloria often, was worried about losing her medical license if that was too published, wanted to live as Valerie's girlfriend, and in general was a trans woman her whole life (yes, people are trans before they medically transition, it's the reason they do not the other way around).


 * Finally, why doesn't the MOS apply here? And why should we ignore it when it clearly says:
 * MOS:GENDERID/MOS:IDENTITY: "Specific guidelines apply to any person whose gender might be questioned, and any living transgender or non-binary person. In summary: Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources."
 * As mentioned repeatedly by multiple people in the discussions, if policy-trumps-guideline applied in cases of gender identity then the guidelines around gender identity would be completely useless, so WP:COMMONSENSE applies.
 * In short, what part of WP policy (all of which say refer to specific guidelines when need be) or guidelines leads one to the conclusion that the guidelines for gender should be ignored? I can venture a guess, but I'll let you explain why guidelines put in place to respect trans people's dignity don't apply in the case of trans people. TheTranarchist (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
 * The mention of BLP does not make it into a supervote; its presence is to explain the historical importance and application of MOS:GENDERID. As I mentioned, BLP doesn't apply in the case of Hemingway — she died over 20 years ago — but the ethical and moral considerations that underpin BLP are wide-ranging, and GENDERID is just a consequence of the idea that biographies should not needlessly cause grief.The colour of a tick on a Wikipedia policy/guideline does not imply, and has never implied, precedence. The only policies that have automatic precedence over anything else are the legal policies. GENDERID is a part of the Manual of Style and arguing for the disapplication of the MoS because "it's just a guideline" is just silly. Rather, policies and guidelines are complementary to each other and have overlapping, but not completely coterminous, areas of application. When closing discussions, the closer needs to weigh up the arguments and the application of standard practice. Specifically, one can not make a lasting closure in contradiction with policies and guidelines, because local consensus cannot override a wider consensus the they enjoy. As pointed out by (inter alia), there is no conflict with COMMONNAME and GENDERID, because COMMONNAME has, by necessity, exceptions wide enough to drive a bus through them, whereas GENDERID does not. Like I said in the close, this is not some case of a historical figure where the trans identity is a matter of scholarly debate (e.g., the Chevalier d'Éon). 2001 is not so long ago that the concept of transsexuality is too alien to our modern understanding, and sources from the time talk about Hemingway's transsexuality at length, although the style of coverage may not be up to the standards we expect these days (indeed, I recall, as a teenager, the rather lurid tabloid coverage of Nadia Almada, and as a young adult, the more respectful coverage of Luke Anderson nearly ten years later.). GENDERID allows us to not be beholden to lurid sensationalism of old, instead preferring the contemporary practice of sympathy to trans identity.And indeed, historically, GENDERID has had precedence over COMMONNAME.  was moved to  sixteen minutes after she publicly came out, and in the case of  to, it took seventeen minutes after he came out. Both moves were done unilaterally, without the need of an RM. Under an absolutist reading of the phrase "use the common name", that wouldn't fly, but instead, a modicum of common sense prevailed, and although some gnashing of teeth and rules-lawyering occurred, the moves rightfully stuck.Once GENDERID is engaged, one cannot, in fair application, disregard it without disregarding the person's trans identity. Easy to do and academically justifiable in the case of the Chevalier; not so much for someone who only died twenty years ago. And even if by a numerical advantage, editors decide that COMMONNAME is overriding, the appropriate close is to follow the wider consensus that GENDERID is overriding instead. There isn't even a numerical advantage in this case; the headcount, by my reckoning, is 7–7. But polling is not a substitute for consensus. The strength of the GENDERID argument, along with the wider and lasting consensus, is such that it tips the balance of the scale strongly towards moving. One final point:  made a rather interesting point regarding the Hemingway's use of "Vanessa" in the party she attended a week before her death. But sources indicate that her use of "Gloria" was much more consistent, and in any case, she was arrested under the name one day after. Although I their argument  – and Paul Preciado's view on deadnames — is interesting and food for thought, it's not the path that we, as a community, have decided to go down in general.Nothing about the move discussion, of course, precludes the use of "Gregory" (and masculine pronouns) in context. But such use should be done with common sense in mind. Overbearing the article with those would definitely violate the spirit of the standards of practice we, as contributors to the encyclopedia, have formulated and agreed to. Whilst my view is that the running text should use feminine pronouns where appropriate and necessary, I'm personally somewhat relaxed regarding situations where people are quoted (as long as, once again, people don't take the proverbial mickey with it). I believe that something near this view is also a natural consequence of the move discussion, but if anyone takes a slightly different view, further civil discussion is not a bad word. Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response and further clarification in the close. There's a whole lot I could say in response to this - and indeed, that's generally why it's not a good idea to introduce new arguments in the close - but I think this just needs to go to move review. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sceptre Thank you for for closing and also saying something about the accusations! It's pretty disheartening that editors consider respecting trans people and relying on their identification some kind of violation of WP policy, but I'm glad to see you're helping manage institutional bias here. TheTranarchist (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
 * Yeah, I find some of the institutional hostility a bit overwhelming at times (do yourself a favour, stay away from the Graham Linehan talk page; why people go to bat for someone whose hostile bigotry has taken him from being a well-respected comedian to an internet troll whose obsessions cost him his marriage is beyond me). Thankfully, most editors here are somewhat reasonable and stay somewhat civil.Saying Wikipedia has a problem with transphobia should not controversial – the idea that Wikipedia editors as a collective may contribute to an institutional bias is something has been known about for over fifteen years. Insomuch as the gender and racial biases are well known about (hence, in the case of gender, the existence of GGTF and Women in Red), the tendency for Very Online People to view trans issues as some massive debate without considering the wider implications isn't as well known. Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please explain how you took my comments (and a support that was then rescinded after them) into consideration in your close, which doesn't mention them. They were specifically about putting her dignity, and trans dignity in general, at the focus. I understand that you found my views "interesting ... food for thought", but I don't understand how you actually considered them in light of other policies and guidelines, especially when they weren't discussed by other !voters. How is a forcible move to Gloria appropriate for someone who used three different names in the week prior to her death, and for whose preferences we actually don't know, as I explained? Why is a close appropriate instead of keeping it open for more time for discussion? Urve (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't wearing a Wikipedian hat when talking about Hemingway, I'd probably take a different view. Like I said, her use of the name Vanessa does complicate things, but not so much as to preclude the result. You are right that we can't divine her intentions with regards to what her name would be if she hadn't died, but this goes both ways; the last name that we know she used was "Gloria" (in the arrest, six days before her death). It's not a perfect option, but it's probably the least imperfect, and is consistent with our current practices. Sceptre (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand. I will make peace with whatever the result ends up being. I left a comment at the move review, neither wanting to support or overturn; this demonstrates how conflicted I am over the topic - you're very right that we should find the least imperfect solution, and if Gregory is that solution, I openly accept that. My only hope (and I think you'll agree) is that if this particular move is overturned, that it should never be used as precedent for other name changes for trans people. Urve (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Gregory Hemingway
An editor has asked for a Move review of Gregory Hemingway. 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. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty
If it's all the same to you, I would prefer it if this was allowed to run for a longer period, a week seems a tad on the short side. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cross-Strait relations RM
Hi Spectre,

I was wondering how you assessed the consensus for this move request? BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for the exact same move in the October RM, and a good amount of editors thought the RM to be incredibly premature given that RM. It wasn't eligible for a speedy close, but I did take both RMs into account. Sceptre (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarifying whether you meant "no consensus" or "consensus not to move" by "not moved"? BilledMammal (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Functionally, they’re the same (i.e. the article isn’t moved in either case) but if you really think it should be a no consensus result for the sake of the record, I’m happy to change it in the morning. Sceptre (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you; it doesn't change this RM, but it does matter for future RM's. BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: close of Talk:Uwu (emoticon)
Hi, I believe that my move request was closed for incorrect reasons. As User:BilledMammal stated, articles cannot start with a lower case letter. But that was not the purpose of the move request, which was requesting that the disambiguation would be moved to all upper-case. The page would still start with an uppercase letter, but it would be shifted to lowercase using Template:Lowercase title as it currently is now. Please reopen the move request, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * given the low amount of participation, and the fact you've corrected my error in reading, I'll happily reopen and resist. Sceptre (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Schön scandal RM
Hello Sceptre,

On your close at Talk:Schön_scandal, which only showed up to me now for some reason... I recognize that it's a tricky close, and I doubt your review was so invalid as to be overturned at MR or the like. That said, I was wondering if you would reconsider anyway. I'd like to point out two notable issues:
 * Procedurally, the article's original move was undiscussed. The current title only has silence from people shrugging.  As a procedural matter, if there's a RM shortly after an undiscussed move that ends in "no consensus", then the move is reverted (well, if the RM was on the old title vs. the new one).  I'll grant that this wasn't particularly speedy, but that just means that the earlier RM should have ended in a reversion.  It's a somewhat quiet article so it not having a speedy RM post-move shouldn't be taken of as a huge endorsement.
 * In general, I think that WP:CONSISTENCY is a weak argument. Not all articles are consistent in naming, and that's okay.  It's more like a nice bonus, which is why I only mentioned it vaguely.  That said, it's definitely an issue here.  If there's really "no consensus", shouldn't this article be named like the usual standard of naming such articles, then?  Because I hope it's non-controversial that this article is very much the odd one out.  I'm really not sure if the oppose voters were seriously suggesting that every person only known for one thing should be moved to "XYZ (scandal / incident / career)", but this just is not remotely true.  I believe that the !voters citing BIO1E had a weak argument for the reasons I brought up in the discussion: this was not a "15 minutes of fame from one act" case, but again, someone's career.  If taken seriously, there should be tens of thousands of RMs for minor figures for "Career of XYZ".  I won't do that, because that'd be a violation of WP:POINT, but it raises a question.  If this article is an exception to the usual naming convention, fine, but there should be an explicit consensus for that, not just "no consensus so let's let an undiscussed move away from the standard 'win'."  (Alternatively, if BLP1E is the argument, then I really don't see a reason why every single other scientist known for a scandal shouldn't be moved as well - which again, I'm not going to propose because that's dumb, but if that wasn't what oppose voters were suggesting, then why is Schon different?)

I already said my case on the merits, which is why I'm sticking to "procedural" issues above. That said, I think they're real, and think this is a case where "no consensus" if that's the close should still result in a reversion to the original title, as it should have in the 2014 RM. SnowFire (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply (and general inactivity), I hope you won't hold it against me. I appreciate your comments, but I'm still minded to stick by my close, although I do understand it's a marginal one. On the subject of the original move in 2010: not all moves have to go through RM, and I think a period of four years is enough to demonstrate a consensus through general acceptance. That the 2014 RM didn't result in moving back also doesn't give me the confidence that a "no consensus, move back" result would be appropriate now either. On the second point: Tamzin made the point that Schon's notability is, for the most part, due to the scandal, and only one sentence in the entire article isn't about the scandal. That to me suggests that if there was an article was created about him, with a section with a "see also" hatnote, it would probably be merged back pretty quickly. I'm well aware that we're using BIO1E as a sort of fiction at times, but at the same time, I don't want to go too much against the grain. Sceptre (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; height: 100px; padding: 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;"> Wishing Sceptre a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discord RM
Hi, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your closure of Talk:Discord_(software).

I count 19 editors supporting and 9 editors opposing. That is a clear majority, and not a close one.

The arguments are not just page views and clickstream versus long-term significance. Supporters also made several other relevant points, such as: that neither the goddess Eris nor the music theory technical concept of dissonance is mainly referred to or would be searched by "discord"; WP:NOTDICTIONARY; and the dissimilarities with apple (which has an encyclopedia article) and the similarity with Hearthstone. Overall, I think the support side made a stronger case on the merits. (Indeed, several participants switched their position from oppose to support during the RM, which is a sign that a case was convincing.)

Even if you disagree and you think that the arguments from both sides were roughly equal on the merits, then if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it (Closing discussions). If some people gave more weight to some policies and one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other people gave more weight to another, then the 19 editors have the rough consensus over the 9. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at the discussion and I'm still not personally convinced there is a strong enough consensus to move, although I admit it's a very fine margin and another closer could see a consensus. What tipped the scale for me is that some people in opposition to the move were strongly opposed to the move, whereas some people supporting it were only weakly supportive. How to weigh a strong/weak !vote varies from closer to closer, and to me, it gets pushed into a "majority, but not a controlling one" territory. Sceptre (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. Are you referring to the strong/weak-labeled !votes? In determining consensus, !votes should be weighed on their merit, not on how strongly the person believes in it. A strong conviction doesn't make a !vote stronger, only a strong rationale can. (Also, as Dohn joe writes below, there were only two self-described strong opposes and two weak supports anyway.) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sceptre - I had come by to ask for your reconsideration here, and see that Adumbrativus made essentially every argument I'd come up with, although I count 20 !supports including the nom. Seeing your response to Adumbrativus, I'm still confused. There were only two strong !opposes and two weak !supports. Even if you discount half of a weak !vote and count a strong !vote as 1 1/2, that still is 19:10 in favor. Please consider a re-open if not a full reversal, in light of the quote from WP:Closing discussions. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I got 20:9 as well. (Yes, it's unusual for a nominator to explicitly !vote, but I would have counted them among supporters even if they hadn't.) Colin M (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Discord (software)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Discord (software). 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. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Boots theory
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Your closing of discussions
I know you’re trying to help, but if it were me I’d take a break from closing discussions. You’ve got a really abnormal volume of complaints above (5+?). In one of the move reviews, a sizeable number of participants had issues with your general closing of discussions and one said they were damaging to the RM process. In the other move review, your judgement was less attacked but honestly, at minimum, the discussion wasn’t ripe for closure (it was still actively being discussed and you closed it promptly after 7 days, in the opposite direction of the flow of comments), and your response to the editors’ concerns above wasn’t ideal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  13:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d
Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Page Move
Thank you for moving the page to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions. Not sure why it was rejected since it was a technical request. The person who "denied" the request was in the wrong. Thank you again. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

DS alert on BLP
Nil Einne (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)