User talk:Teammm/Archive 2

Darn You!!
You've made me jealous of your signature!! =] Can you create me a mock up of how mine would look in similar style please Teammm? Thanks and have a nice day/evening  J e n o v a  20 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I made you one with a different font. (better than mine :P) – 'ツ Te a m m m '' talk · email 17:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * J e no va   20  ...or... ツ J e no va   20 


 * Or, you can do regular font, italic – ツ ' Te a m m m '' (talk · email) 17:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 *  J e no va   20  ...or... ツ J e no va   20 


 * Very nice!! I like this one -> ツ Je no va   20  email <- but is it possible to get the smiley in bold like your last example and the talk + email options on the end mr? Thanks so much for your hard work!  J e n o v a  20 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm glad you like it! The smiley is actually a Japanese letter. If I had used "=D" it wouldn't be as styled.
 * Yours look perfect bold! – ツ Te a m m m talk · email 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...i learned something today! =] Can you tell me how i get "email" added to the end of my signature mr? Thanks sooo much  J e n o v a  20 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Parentheses? or no parentheses? Hugged up to your name or spaced away? – ツ Te a m m m talk · email 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks perfect how it is now =D. Is that small enough for me to use though? Thanks so much  J e n o v a  20 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, it was too long. I had to take green out. Or you can swap green for gold. Wish it allowed a tiny more.
 * Look at it and see what color combo you want. It can only use 3 colors on "Jenova" – ツ Te a m m m talk · email 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this one Teammm -> ツ Je no va  20  (email) <- but it won't let me use it...is it still too big? Thanks for the hard work you put in  J e n o v a  20 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is. Still trying to figure it out. Try it again, I changed something. – ツ Te a m m m talk · email 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See if it's the length ツ Je no va  20  that is the problem. – ツ Te a m m m  talk · email 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." Strange message but that's what it keeps saying. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 21:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it! :P
ツ Je no va  20  (email) – ツ Te a m m m  (talk · email) 21:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope... still doesn't work =P ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Aww thanks! And do you know I checked it again, not realizing you signed with it? lol – ツ Te a m m m (talk · email) 21:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LMAO! I was just thinking i should have my own barnstar section on your userpage since i've given you half of em =P
 * How are you today anyway Teammm? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol I'm very well thanks for asking! I had the day off, been relaxed and plan on seeing The Amazing Spider-Man tonight!! I heard it's really good so I can't resist the temptation until the weekend. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 22:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Jealous!! I'm not so keen on the new Spiderman...I liked Tobey Maguire and this new guy is unattractive and strange to me. The b/f has been bugging me to go see it but i can't bear to watch him butcher the series or ruin the memories i have of the other 3 films. Have you seen the Avengers Assemble? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep I've seen The Avengers and it was great! Love me some Captain America! lol But my favorite superhero is none other than Spiderman, so I gotta see him. Hopefully he's in the sequel to The Avengers. Tobey Maguire was really good as Spiderman, I always liked him. Sweet guy. Now, Andrew Garfield is a little awkward but I've heard nothing but good reviews so he better deliver! lol I'm always hesitant too because I don't want it to be horrendous. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mines gotta be that Robert Downey Jr =P. Another Iron Man film being produced =D You like those since you appear to like the other Marvel films? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Robert Downey Jr. but I've never seen any of his movies, not even Iron Man. :o Is that bad? lol – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a crime against nature =P...You have to watch the,, especially if you enjoyed the Avengers ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Overstepping on "vandalism"
I appreciate you have strong opinions on the matter, but someone replacing "sexual orientation" with "sexual preference" seems a legitimate attempt at editing, and should not be labeled "vandalism", as you did at Same-sex marriage in the United States. "Vandalism" is a descriptor which should be used with caution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That particular user did the same edit for disruption. Thank you for coming by though. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 06:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your evidence being? I have trouble seeing how you'd have much knowledge of that particular user, given the lack of edits from that IP address. This seems like a strong WP:AGF matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, sir. I reverted it strongly the second time according to my understanding and the given situation. The notice I placed on the user's talk page notified him or her that the edit was not constructive, then he or she did it again three days later. Still the notice I placed for the second time stated it wasn't constructive. Two times the person was given a polite notice. You don't have to police my edits because I don't abuse or overuse anything I do. And I've moved on. Will you? Thank you and have a nice one, Nat. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 21:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as you can see, the same person did the same edit a third time. I'm not playing a policy game here. Don't have time for nonsense. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you find time to review WP:VANDALISM, so that you can recognize that even being disruptive does not qualify an edit as vandalism? You seem to have used the vandalism claim and templates quite inappropriately; it should not be used a marker to simply claim that your wording is prefefred to his. If you continue to abuse the vandalism claim and templating in this way, you are apt to find someone addressing it through policy channels, whether you feel you have time for policy concerns or not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, you just suggested it. Thank you! Have a good one. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 22:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Quiz Show
What exactly is unhelpful about my additon to the box office section of Quiz Show? I linked to articles that show the truth. "Quiz Show was a box office success" is an opinion and even the link used does not go with this sentence. All the linked article states is that the film had a strong opening weekend, that's it. The information on that section of the page now is unhelpful and incorrect. I loved the film Quiz Show. I wished it had been a hit so more films like it would have been made, but the facts are it performed poorly and was released to very few screens. I only care because I was trying to be helpful and put a fact of its box office up but it keeps getting changed. It makes me very worried that informationon Wikipedia is not false because someone is mistaken, but wrong because someone has an agenda to make up facts and Wikipedia will present them as truth even when the truth is added to the page. I feel s though even this message will yield results that the false information on that page will remain. Look it up if you want.Ilovepinkyrings (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not too familiar with the article's subject, but the source you provided isn't considered reliable because the source is essentially a paper from college students giving a critique of the movie. Maybe you could find some information in another source that would be more reliable that rates the success of the box office based on how much it cost to make the movie and what it was expected to earn, because the movie was a success and gained much acclaim. ~  Teammm  $Talk Message$ 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the additions you made regarding release dates, etc. doesn't conform to the format of Wikipedia and could contain info that's already in the infobox or unnecessary to add at all. You can learn how to make tables, etc. using the links I placed on your talk page when I welcomed you. Thank you. Sorry for the inconvenience. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Randi GA nomination
I have started a GA review of an article to which you have recently contributed. Any help in addressing the concerns raised in the review are welcome.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 04:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Channel Orange
Hi. I'm expanding the article at my sandbox and want to know whether the stylization of the album title should be the one used throughout the article or the non-stylized, or is it just about consistency and either will do. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure. You probably don't use the stylization throughout the article when referring to it, only when naming the album for example in an infobox or in a list of album titles. Channel Orange would be correct. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I do like channel ORANGE better personally. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper article
You deleted the entire Criticism section I added to the Anderson Cooper article. I have undone that revision. If you feel that an edit or a section is inadequate, you are more than welcome to enrich it by adding further context. However, there is no conceivable reason why a page on a journalist should be bereft of criticism regarding that journalist's reporting. Druep (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, I deleted it. The section you added was not constructive and added biased information into a biography of a living person. See WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Anyone can find articles criticizing, that doesn't make it legitimate enough to add into the article. The sources must be reliable and the information should be cohesive. A criticism section on a biography needs to be scrutinized for necessity, strict reliability, and neutrality. We don't just add any old opinion from sources who felt the need to criticize something. Also, please make sure you click the "leave me a new message" link or "New Section" tab when adding a new conversation to my talk page. I like it to be in order chronologically. Thank you. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

GA try for Same-sex marriage in Maryland
Do you think that it is worth trying for GA status on the article now, or would it be more appropriate to wait until after November, win or lose(ug). Having said that, since both of us are Marylanders who have interest in one side of the issue, hopefully we can get someone who can look out of NNPOV issues. (Only reason that I won't be outside the polls on election day, is that I'll be inside, I'm an election judge)Naraht (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Naraht, you can nominate it if you want or you can just ask someone to look over the article and fix any issues or rewrite paragraphs to make them better. I honestly don't think it's GA material right now, particularly the "recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages" section. I was still thinking about how to rewrite that section to make it sound better. If any same-sex marriage article deserves GA status, it's the one for New York. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: CO
Appreciate it. Just love how this music I love listening to has so many stories and facets to it. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can definitely relate to that feeling. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 03:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regnerus study
Given your earlier interest, perhaps you'd care to comment at Talk:LGBT parenting Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Your clean-up on my odd structure was perfect! Insomesia (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, you're welcome. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan
You might want to take a look at Andrew Sullivan, where debates over the significance of Pooh Sticks are threatening to devolve into an edit war. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not the only person to confuse a statement ABOUT a point of view with the point of view itself. This does seem to be a perennial problem with wikipedia contributors. If Mr X says the sky is green this is factually inaccurate. If Ms Y says that Mr X is stupid for saying the sky is green this is a point of view. If I put in Mr X's biography that Mr X said that the sky is green and that Ms Y said he was stupid for saying so this is factually correct and a neutral statement. Anyhow, I have given up trying to explain the distinction to you all and as for Mark's view on what is and is not relevant to biography, he is inconsistent with other instances I found very easily. However, I have lots of other things to get on with so will leave you all to this one. Love, Light and Peace Oinky (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy also of your note on my own talk page and my reply for sake of easy reference: Thanks Oinky (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oinky. There seems to be an edit war going on at Andrew Sullivan. The statement you added is not cohesive where you placed and is out of place. The subject you referenced is no where else in the article, so the addition makes no sense. Please discuss issues on the talk page and don't edit war, as that is contrary to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you may know. ツ Teammm (talk · email) 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC) "The subject you referenced is no where else in the article, so the addition makes no sense" That's not correct. The subject I referenced is Sullivan's election to office which is mentioned (another contributor's words, not mine) in the preceding half of the same sentence - I simply added a subordinate clause to an existing factual statement. Please read my edit again. If you still think it is "not cohesive" and "out of place" I would be grateful for an explanation of where in the article it would sit better. I don't intend to waste any more of time editing this particular article given the reaction of certain people, but I am genuinely puzzled by the supposed rationale. I would love to think that professional standards of biographical writing are being applied here, but I do appreciate that other contributors are doing their best in a field which is not their "day job". If you can shed any light to reassure me that would be great. I have messaged you directly as well. Thank you Oinky (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph reads as follows: ""He was educated at Reigate Grammar School, and studied at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he was awarded a first-class degree Bachelor of Arts in modern history and modern languages. In his second year, he was elected president of the Oxford Union, holding the office in Trinity term 1983, though subsequently criticised by Boris Johnson for founding a university society as a vehicle for his electoral ambitions.""

My point was that your statement (in bold) has no context, explaining what society you're talking about, showing how Sullivan was criticized and showing that it's something notable enough to place into his biography. Is Boris Johnson's criticism of Sullivan's election as President of the Oxford Union during sophomore year in university something that is necessary to mention? (WP:UNDUE) For all I know, it could just be bitterness or jealously at the age of 24 (I don't know). Is the addition of criticism solely meant to portray Sullivan in a negative light unnecessarily, without notable importance? The source you used is not accessible. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 14:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, point by point, and I will do this because - thank you - you have taken the trouble to explain your motives and you are highly active on Wikipedia (much more than I am) so it matters that someone of your standing "gets" the way biography works. You will appreciate that Wikipedia comes under enormous external criticism for perceived poor quality content so it is important that we all do our best to ensure that good editorial principles are followed. I am doing my best here and I would like to think I will have your support.

"no context" - naming the society would not be context, it would be further detail. The society was in fact named in previous edits but that level of detail was repeatedly removed by other editors. It's a matter of opinion how much detail is appropriate, but I agree with others who felt that naming the society itself was excessive. How was Sullivan criticised - again, the precise wording Johnson employed is detail not context. It occupied most of a published page - there are selected quotes on the talk page. Something notable enough - this is editorial opinion. It won't be demonstrated by adding more and more detail. We have to accept that I think it is notable enough for inclusion for reasons I have outlined, but a number of people disagree. In my opinion those other people have given poor reasons for their standpoint but we all have to accept is that these are opposing opinions not alternative realities. There is no Platonic standard for biographical data. Was Johnson suffering from bitterness or jealousy at the age of 24? - I have no idea whether he was. Both Johnson and Sullivan are respected commentators. The fact that they were in their twenties when one of them criticised the other has no bearing on Johnson's motives, nor is it fair comment to speculate on his emotional state at the time. There are a great many other instances noted in Sullivan's entry dealing with his disagreements with people, as one would expect, so to single this one out for repeated deletion is puzzling. Is the inclusion....meant to portray Sullivan in a negative light unecessarily? - goes to my own motives, I suppose. No, it isn't meant to portray Sullivan negatively at all (NPOV means there is NO "necessary" negative portrayal anyway). It's meant to add salient biographical detail to the one occasion on which Sullivan contested an election. In my opinion this is relevant detail given his career. Similar detail has been included by other editors in other people's biographies. I know you disagree with me as to relevance as stated above. Why your POV rather than mine should prevail is the question. The source I used is "not accessible" - It's a book! I accept that makes it less accessible than something on the internet but it's just incorrect to call it not accessible. Countless other wikipedia entries reference hard copy sources.

Hope that makes it clear. With respect, I will ask once again that the edit should stand. Love, Light and Peace Oinky (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * After everything you've said, I don't doubt that you sincerely believe in your reasoning. But, the addition of that statement goes to the character of Andrew Sullivan. My question is, does it have the notable importance to warrant a place in the article? Is Sullivan's creation of a university society (I'm not familiar with any of these details really) and the subsequent criticism from another student at that university notable? Have sufficiently reliable secondary sources reported on the supposed controversy? Or is it just in that book you cited, co-authored by Johnson, of which I can't seem to find a summary, or abstract? ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks, I heartily recommend you move this conversation to Talk:Andrew Sullivan, where other people can know about and address the concerns. Looking at the history, it's clear that the two of you are not the only two concerned over the edit, so even if the two of you come to some accord, you're likely to just be reworking it out with the people there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nat. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 22:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can get Oinky's consent, I would copy and paste the discussion here onto Talk:Andrew Sullivan under the appropriate section. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 22:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy for the discussion to be copied to Talk:Andrew Sullivan. One last thing before we go; I believe you are underestimating the importance of the Oxford Union and its presidential elections in the context of the presidents' subsequent careers. I have reviewed the wikipedia entries of those past presidents from the last 40 years who have them. There are 20 in total. 7 of them (35%), not including Andrew Sullivan's, include reference to the circumstances of their election, sometimes at some length. See you on Talk:Andrew Sullivan. Love, Light and Peace Oinky (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

HRC
Hi Teammm. Here's what caught my attention about HRC: "... the Human Rights Campaign, a 501(c)(4) organization that focuses on lobbying Congress and state and local officials for support of pro-LGBT bills, and mobilizing grassroots action amongst its members..."  Thing is, though, a 501(c)(4) isn't supposed to be primarily political; it's supposed to be for education or social welfare. I didn't want to wade into this myself, as I was pretty sure somebody more familiar with the subject matter would happen along soon enough if I tagged it. And, well... it didn't take long. Anywho... I took a quick look at your cite, and it doesn't seem to say anything about a 501(c)(4). Are we sure about this fact? It seems questionable.  Belch fire - TALK 01:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HRC promotes social welfare of the gay and lesbian community through political lobbying. HRC Foundation is educational. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 01:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

your sig
Could you please change the size of the font of your sig? It is exceedingly large. Thanks. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 22:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
You could get it to GA the way you're going. Have you thought about attempting? If i managed it once then anyone can. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Teammm. I saw your comment removal at the Same-sex marriage talk page, and I wanted to know if you are aware of the WP:TALK guideline about not removing your comment(s) after others have replied to it (them)? I know that the other editor hadn't replied to it yet, but he was going to (as shown on the talk page), and I just wanted to know if you'd have removed the comment after he replied. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment was already removed. He put my comment back and replied to it. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 18:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but it was removed by accident when he was about to respond. Then you removed it after he restored/responded to it, which left his comment partially out of context. But he striked through that part of his response and left a note about it. So it's moot anyway. I just wanted to ask you about it. Thanks for replying. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Vandalism Filter
First of all, thank you for your welcome message. I know it was a while ago, but I just wanted to say I appreciate it.

I need help with the vandalism filter. On July 6th, I tried to make an edit to the page on Val Kilmer. However, it was stopped by the vandalism filter, and no one ever replied. I suspect my edit is floating in limbo, and I was wondering if you or someone could look into it. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Riffraff913 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Do you remember what your edit was? There are edit filters on articles that block certain things (ie. email addresses) from being added to articles. You should explain your edit in detail to Black Kite. That administrator can help you more than I can on this issue. It has happened to me before so it doesn't necessarily mean that you did something wrong. ~ Teammm  $Talk Message$ 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your quick work on Homosexuality

 * Thanks ~  Teammm  $Talk Message$ 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Username Stuff
Hi there Teammm, I was just wondering as Jenova20 mentioned it to me, and said to ask, wether or not it was possible if you could come up with a signature design for me? or whatever it is you call it, lol. I just thought it would be worth asking, Thanks. BlueStars83 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! No problem. Check your talk page. ~  Teammm  $Talk Message$ 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment
Hi. Would you be interested in commenting on a featured article candidate here? Any comments on the article The Way I See It (album) and the issues that have been addressed (or new observations) would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's great! I can tell you enjoy writing. Teammm  $talk email$ 02:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

date format
I've noticed you changing date formats in citations. When I use the editing templates, the date format for accessdate defaults to this format: 29 October 2012. Do you know a way to change that? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I wish there was a choice between defaults but that's the only one available. U.S. articles use MDY format and there's no way to do it automatically in the citation template, we can only type it manually. Maybe we can request a change on a board somewhere, I'm not sure. Teammm  $talk email$ 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Yeah, i was having problems with my referencing for some reason. Wouldn't fill in or when it did it listed the full thing out, rather than doing the [32] thing. RAP (talk) 14:16 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Every time I edit something, a server error comes up. Teammm  $talk email$ 02:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

THANKS A LOT
Thanks team for fixing the link ! I appreciate :-) talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Emphasizes the notability"
What kind of drivel is that? Show me where in any naming convention anywhere in the guidelines "emphasizing the notability" is ever mentioned. The rule, unless there is a specific naming convention to the contrary, is to the the WP:COMMONNAME. Anyone who has not followed this election closely will have no idea what "Question 6" is. That is, in this context, the definition of inaccessible. Can you genuinely sit there and justify to yourself that in a general purpose encyclopedia it makes more sense not to have "same-sex marriage referendum" in the title of an article about a referendum on same-sex marriage? I'm sorry, but the only argument beside your "emphasizing the notability" one is that the other is official. That simply doesn't matter. Guidelines specifically state that we ignore the official title in favour of the common name. So please, explain why an officious, inaccessible title is better than one that is clear and actually follows guidelines. -Rrius (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible you misunderstand the point of what I am trying to do? The article is currently at "Question 6", which is far from "emphasizing the notability". I am trying to move it back to "Maryland same-sex marriage referendum, 2012", but there is a redirect in the way that needs to be deleted to effect the move. So if you think it should be at "Maryland same-sex referendum, 2012", then stop deleting the CSD tag. If you think it should be at "Maryland Question 6 (2012)", explain how that is a better title and, for that matter, how it is more notable for being the 6th question on the ballot than for being a referendum on SSM. -Rrius (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just looked back at my talk page, and clearly you somehow think "Question 6" "emphasizes the notability" of the article. You also try to make an argument from recognizability, but as I point out in my response to you at my talk page, "marriage referendum" maryland outstrips "Question 6" maryland by better than 10 to 1. -Rrius (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

From Google Search:
 * maryland question 6 = 373 million hits
 * maryland marriage referendum = 2.15 million hits
 * maryland same-sex marriage referendum = 811,000 hits
 * Question 6 is how people refer to it, whether from Maryland or otherwise. Teammm  $talk email$ 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. Your first search is invalid because "question 6" must be in quotation marks, otherwise any site that has "question" and "6" and "maryland" is returned; even without the quotation marks, you overshoot the truth by more than 200 million. Outside of the pro- and anti-SSM activist and journalist communities, it is bizarre to suggest that most people would know the referendum by its ballot position rather than by its subject matter. If you aren't in Maryland, go the grocery store (it's a Saturday, so it should be busy) and ask the first 50 adults what they would type if they were searching for information about Maryland's same-sex marriage referendum. Then, ask the next 50 what "Maryland Question 6" is. Finally, ask the next 50 what the question number of Maryland's same-sex marriage referendum is. The name "Question 6" is an insider's term, unknown to most people not in a Maryland media market or heavily into the topic (as you and I clearly are). What's more, the disparity will only grow as we move forward from the election. This is not Prop 8, where it has become so mainstream that everyone just calls it that, and suggesting the contrary is just ridiculous. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

From Google Search:
 * "question 6" = 3.69 million hits
 * "maryland question 6" = 127,000 hits
 * "maryland same-sex marriage referendum" = 52,200 hits
 * "maryland marriage referendum" = 45,300 hits
 * I don't see what you mean. Teammm  $talk email$ 19:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your quotation marks are all messed up. The phrase question 6 needs to be set of, resulting in maryland "question 6" The other search is maryland "same-sex marriage" referendum When you put things in question marks, it searches for that exact phrase. When you didn't put question 6 in in quotation marks, it returned any page with the terms "question", "6", and "maryland". Your "referendum" searches are way too restrictive, as the point is to find the use of the generic reference to the referendum, not the exact phrase "maryland same-sex marriage referendum". When you use fair and reasonable search terms, you get what I reported in my response to you at my talk page. -Rrius (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, the current title would be the common name. Teammm  $talk email$ 13:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Maine Question 1, 2012
Could you give your opinion? Ron 1987 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)