User talk:Tiggerjay/Archives 2015

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreviewed Article
Hello there. Could you just spend a moment and review this article and possibly remove the tage from the top of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Caszadeh Thank you in advance. :) SlimSlim (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Help?
Hi!

I came across your profile and notice that you seem a really welcoming and helpful editor, so I thought I should reach out.

Not sure if you have ever come across the University Canada West article. There are only of couple of editors actively contributing to the page and we believe the article as a whole would benefit from different point of views.

I have a professional connection to the subject (and have recently created a COI profile), but my goal is to work with the community to improve the overall quality of the article and ensure it is neutral and factual. While I have in the past contributed to Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, the past few months have been a massive learning curve – not just about the Wikipedia guidelines, but also about diplomacy, argumentation, negotiation, etc.

I have invited a few other editors with similar interests to join the discussion as I’m currently seeking feedback on draft for a potential History section (available here). If you’re interested, your help and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! BrandDude (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tiggerjay
Thank you for the message. Please take a closer look at the sentence you reverted ("His findings were ridiculed by experts in the field"This is very bias.) and then look at the source provided. What experts? All of them? This could be fixed by adding "some experts" but it is better to remove the whole bias sentence. I will remove it for now. Please revert my edit if you think otherwise. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.20.173 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like there might have been an edit conflict. Go ahead and revert. I agree with you that it should be removed. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing on mobile, citations, and how to add an image on an iPhone?
Thank you for the edit. I just joined Wikipedia, and after watching this great film on Netflix, I wanted to add some more information about it, but I wasn't sure how to add a citation, and I also wanted to add the theatrical movie poster too. Help is appreciated. This was a great movie. CalebBrill (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit you made was regarding box office sales which was unsourced, and the number you stated isn't likely accurate without a Reliable Source. I would suggest you start with reading WP:NewbieGuide. Best of luck Tiggerjay (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entry on Living Person
Thank you for your interest. The paragraph in question is erroneous and sourced on disputed assertions. Apparently you have the authority to block such paragraphs. Since you appear to have blocked my effort to remove this prejudicial paragraph, I would appreciate what information you need to block the efforts by another editor to post the paragraph. LeBaron himself denied the account in The Cable. Thank you! 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelldon1040 (talk • contribs)
 * Shelldon1040, I reverted your change because you did not provide a reason for removing content from an article which appears to be properly cited. While you may disagree with the content, it does meet the inclusion criteria for wikipedia from the standpoint of being Verifiable and in Reliable Sources. If you feel it could be better written, feel free to rewrite it instead. But a word of advice, be sure you write it in a Neutral Way and Unbiased Way. Thanks so much! Tiggerjay (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply.  I believe the paragraph does not meet the inclusion criteria because it is biased and selective of the "facts," violating the Neutral Point of View policy.  The editor has not represented the incident failrly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias.  For example, LeBaron's statement denying the accurancy of the accounts was ignored by the editor. Instead, only a phrase from the statement was included, that denying any fighting or violence. The editor ignored the larger, more important point: that the facts portrayed in the articles do not reflect what actually transpired.  Thus the editor has not represented the incident fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias.  Rather, the editor's intent seems to be that of harming the LP with a selective version of the incident, including a selective rendition of the LP's denial ThankShelldon1040 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC) you.  17:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)17:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Shelldon1040 (talk)
 * Shelldon, you are on the cusp of what is called an Edit War. The error is that you keep trying to force your concepts in the article instead of discussing it with the other editor on the talk page. There clearly appears to be BIAS on both sides of the issue which need to be worked through, but fighting in the article space, or in individual user talk pages is not the way to go about it. Instead bring up your concerns on the article talk page, and then bring that talk page to the attention of the other editors who are involved in the controversy. There is also a point of concern that there appears to be several editors who are editing simply this page without prior edit history. Actually, I will start the talk page, and then bring it to the attention of the current editors. Best of luck to you. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tiggerjay, thank you for your continuing attention to the BLP page. I welcome it, and I welcome your suggestion about how to avoid a continuation of the Edit War, for that is what it has certainly become. As you requested, I will refrain from further edits to the paragraph -- as long as the others do. And I will wait for the other editor(s) to initiate a discussion. I would like very much to understand why they are so intent on harming the LP by posting what you yourself have described as a biased version of the incident.

Thank you again. Shelldon1040 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Definitely want to avoid an edit war - I think the incident merits inclusion because it was properly sourced and had witnesses, but I don't want to portray it in a biased manner. I think we could easily work this out if we find neutral language representing the incident cited in the Washington Post and Foreign Policy. I'm sure LeBaron can include his properly sourced perspective as well in order to balance the description. So, I suggest Sheldon proposes some language for the paragraph and includes Lebaron's full denial. Would that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforfree (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the close at Talk:Fall (disambiguation)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your close of the requested move at Talk:Fall (disambiguation). I am the nominator, but I did not revert your close because I disagree with your close, per-say; I reverted it because given the length of the discussion, I really think that an explanation of the consensus that led to the close needs to be explained in the closing statement. Feel free to close the discussion again if a detailed statement about the close can be added to the close. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've closed it because the only one who should reopen it is the closer.  Calidum   21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, since you have decided to get involved in this for some reason, I'm re-reverting the close per WP:NACD since I think it was a close call, and I'd rather an administrator close it. Sorry Tiggerjay, I would have been okay if you explained your close, but now since this happened, I'm basically contesting it. (Oh, I see that Calidum voted to "oppose", so they are involved as well.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus, nor any progress being made on this discussion. Consensus isn't defined or determined by a close call... Consensus is not winning a 50/50 split. Its been open for discussion for 20 days, and even relisted, and still receiving mixed reviews. There is no definitive direction that this discussion is leaning. Not nearly enough policy discussions on comparison to the personal opinions being expressed on the matter. Do what extent to you believe this discussion should continue on with support continuing to go both directions? ALSO I'm reverting your revert -- did you read NACD? You do not reopen it. As Calidum mentioned, consider WP:MR. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, thanks for adding the explanation to your close. I agree on the lack of consensus, but just did not agree with the lack of explanation due to how the discussion went, so I did what I thought was appropriate; I have no desire to engage WP:MR since I don't see it ever being clearer myself. So, I guess you could call my reopen of the discussion a WP:IAR reopen that I now have no desire to do again thanks to the close's explanation. Steel1943  (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, we're good. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Like Melanie's edits
It appears Melanie added edits that seem pretty neutral to me and provides both perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforfree (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only edit MelanieN made was to protect the page and add the required template notating that protection . Her protection is no indication that the page, as protected represents an approved version, but rather to protect it from further changes by new editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. It looks good to me though. Thanks Melanie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforfree (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on BLP -- Lebaron
I appreciate NotforFree's interest in finding consensus language for the paragraph. Given Lebaron's strong denial of the accuracy of the accounts, I can't figure out what kind of paragraph would work. It would just be a he said, she said exercise whose length would grossly exaggerate the significance of this arguably irrelevant incident.

So I'm not the one who should be proposing language, since I don't think this incident requires any mention at all. What is the point of mentioning it? What is its diplomatic importance? What is its historical value? Lebaron spent three years there as ambassador, and this is only aspect of his time there that is worth mentioning? His work there was covered by lots of media outlets. There are scores of other stories about his activities during this time that are out there. Why ignore all those sources and mention only this incident?

No, it doesn't make sense to this editor. And it raises the question: what is the purpose of Wikipedia BLP entries. The approach represented by the paragraph is selective and biased, in this editor's opinion. Shelldon1040 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Shelldon1040 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) What I'm struggling with is this: Wikipedia says BLPs "must be written conservatively." "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

If the paragraph in question is not an example of tabloid material, then I'm not sure what Wikipedia's definition of tabloid material is, especially when it is quite possible the claims are false, as Lebaron claims they are.

I find it interesting that The Cable buried Lebaron's denials in tiny font at the end of the article in dispute, so his denials were easily missed by readers. And some Wikipedia editor(s) further introduced bias by using just a fragment of his denial. They ignored his denials about the accuracy of the entire account, adding just his denial of physical violence. That suggests their own bias. It makes me wonder about their motives. The paragraph was certainly not written with a Neutral Point of View.Shelldon1040 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear I am not supporting either side of this story, and I also agree that it seems that some undue weight is being applied to the one item. However, my interests is to prevent edit warring over this topic. The correct place to have this discussion is on the article talk page between you and the other interested editors as to how this should be agreed upon through consensus. Wikipedia is not built upon arguments being placed before an judge who passes a specific position. Rather work it out between the two of you in a civilized manner first. If that fails, then you can ask other editors such as myself or others, to help on the matter. But for now, try to work it out between those editors specifically interested in the insertion of this information. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiggerjay/Templates/HDR
User:Tiggerjay/Templates/HDR is restored and this time I removed the speedy tag. Earlier when it was restored the tag remained on it. That's why it got deleted again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars music
I wonder whether relisting is needed. There is just one vote. If not, then why is not yet renamed? --George Ho (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks George Ho, I closed and then nom of CSD#G6, however the admin didn't subsequently perform the page move. I just noticed the destination was deleted, so I completed the merge, and am currently working on most move cleanup. Thanks for noticing. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Leeds Festival (classical music)
When inuse}} is on a page, it means, or should mean, that an editor is making for a short period, a major edit or series of edits, and asks you to refrain from editing to avoid edit conflicts. It lists the time that it has been in place, which should be fairly short. I was in the process of cleaning up the citations on [[Leeds Festival (classical music) and had placed an in use tag when you corrected one (but not all) of the issues there. Your edit would normally have been helpful,. but it did cause an edit conflict with an edit which would have fixed the spelling error and some other issues as well. Please consider the request made by such a tag when you see it on an article in future. DES (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DES - those edits were made based on the users request over at the helpdesk here. Otherwise I would agree that the inuse tag should be followed. Tiggerjay (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I guess that. I was also responding to the same helpdesk request, and had already fixed some of the issues, and was working on the others. In fact I placed the inuse tag when the helpdesk poster conflicted with one of my edits trying to fix the references. Ah well, no huge problem. DES (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Met On Chat: Spoke about Kid Pan Alley page
Hi Tiggerjay,

Thanks again for your help on chat yesterday for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kid_Pan_Alley. I haven't been able to hear anything further from the person who last reviewed it even though I reached out. I was wondering if you could check it out and approve it if you feel it follows the wiki guidelines for acceptable articles which I feel is does. I put a lot of work into writing it and making sure it was sourced properly and accurate, I'd hate to see it fail now. Thank you.

Ryanbenyo (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Laplet
Please reconsider your procedural close of Talk:Laplet. One of the options "2-in-1 PC" suggested in the header of the RM is still strongly being considered in the following RMs, the group of them should probably be closed together. PaleAqua (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having two open and active RM requests only results in a harder process of determining consensus. I would consider reopening 2-in-1 if we close the other RM. However the one currently open has a more appropriate and accurate move request target, based on the consensus of the closed request. It seems agreed that 2-in-1 is not sufficient and an additional qualifier is necessary. The currently opened RM has that qualifier, and is a better place for that discussion... Your thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The first discussion included the option of "2-in-1 PC" right in its opening: "{{tq|Alternatively 2-in-1 PC could be used instead to reduce ambiguity.}". Given that not everyone that commented in the first RM has commented in the other ones those comments still need to be considered together when closing. So I don't see how procedurally closing the October15th one helps. PaleAqua (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The new discussion has taken on a length equal to the original one so discarding one for the other would also be equally problematic now. Additionally, the real problem was letting multiple RMs continue on at the same time. I think what is probably the best route now is to actually move this to a !vote on specific name variants. It appears that there is a clear consensus for a rename, as well as consensus that 2-in-1 is not sufficient alone. But that there is some debate on if it should be PC, Computer, etc... It appears, but I'm not certain that PC is the winning variant, but I do think a more formal call to vote would be appropriate. As such, I'll call that question on the article talk page. However I do believe at this point, to reopen the other one, would simply cause additional confusion over which RM to discuss and bring further fracture to the discussion. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cecil_(lion)
8 supports vs 3 oppose. And one of the opposes is based on a bad faith assumption (SmokeyJoe). Are you sure that is a no consensus? And why the rush to close if there is no consensus, it is only 8 days old. -- Green  C  20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- at a minimum, this close is premature. Please re-open.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter of Spain
First, Kindly remember to sign your posts.

Second, thank you for the heads up. Persuasion seldom works on the internet unless it was what someone already wanted to do anyway, but to give it a shot: Two problems seem to be the mover's academic bias and your misunderstanding of. Yes, the logician is the of the namespace "Peter of Spain" at an encyclopedia, guide, and dictionary of philosophy; no, he is not the  in general as compared with a pope. It's obviously hard to get firm numbers on such a muddled question but "Peter of Spain" shows up on Google four times more often associated with the word pope than with the word logician & articles on Pope John XXI do usually mention the name. I myself am a counterexample to the mover's bias than people will generally be looking for the logician or I wouldn't've notice the problem and fixed it in the first place. It's enough—and this pope is relatively notable enough—that we should keep a dab instead of opting for one and using a hatnote.

"Peter of Spain" is the of the logician and the  of the pope is "Pope John XXI". That does not mean that Peter of Spain is the of that namespace: as above, he isn't. It just means that when we create the dab, one's article goes to "Peter of Spain (something)" and the other's is at "Pope John XXI". He was still known as Peter of Spain before becoming pope and people looking for Peter of Spain might be trying to find him rather than the logician. (If that's kind of hard to think about, an example is America. There's a Judge Dredd story whose is America, whereas the  of the country is the United States. That's completely irrelevant w/r/t to which one is the .) —  Llywelyn II   22:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not the mover, Llywelyn; you are. I'm proposing to revert a move you made without discussion. And now you're spreading the discussion across several user talk pages and the article's talk page. I cited a source—not a philosophical source, but a general medievalist one—which explicitly calls the logician the "most significant" person called "Peter of Spain". Srnec (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Llywelyn - The objection was raised by others about your actual move without discussion. There was no specific need to make your points to me, but the request was to have you share them on the relevant talk page so it could be brought into this general discussion. I also suggest that you consider avoiding the term "logician" since that isn't used as the primary identifier for any of the Peter's, but rather pope, author and Ferrandi. In any regards, I am posting my comments over at the talk apge to avoid fractured discussions on this topic. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing moves
I notice you have been closing a few RMs lately. You might want to read up a bit on WP:RMCI. One thing you should be aware of is the difference between "Not moved" and "No consensus to move". For example Talk:Topos with no opposes should definitely not have been closed as "Not moved". At most it should have been "no consensus to move", but a requested move with no !votes, besides the opening nomination and no reverted page moves before the RM should normally result in moved unless there is a WP:CONLIMITED type issue. PaleAqua (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter of Spain (author)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter of Spain (author). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Hill
Forgetting something? -- Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 03:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis
At your no consensus closing Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk), you claim "a clear division in application of policy". Could you please summarize what reasonable policy-based arguments you see there opposing the proposal? --В²C ☎ 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Tran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amy Tran. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance message
Hi, so on October 24 I got a message from you saying I had messages at WP:Editor assistance, but somehow I didn't notice it until now. Could you possibly show me where I can find it again as the page doesn't seem to list anything about me. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Kim Davis (county clerk)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Kim Davis (county clerk). 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. В²C ☎ 20:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands
Please help me fix up ref number 5 on this page. Thanks so muchSrbernadette (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Martineau family
Please check ref number 6 on this page, and do a general 'fix" if you are able. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a specific issue with ref 6 on that page, can you explain what you think the problem is. Also you materially changed the content of that sentence removing the reference to the Unitarian church, can you explain this removal. I have reverted (reversed) that change, since it appears to be introducing unsupported bias. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The ref number 6 with the bit about the Birmingham Unitarian church IS NOT SEEN in the book that it is quoting. That is why I took it out. My latest "fix-up" that I did just now is  indeed  correct - the cousins Alderman Robert Martineau and Alderman Francis Martineau Lupton attended political  conferences in Birmingham. Please revert back to the one I did today. Thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

NB - I have had the text reverted back to how it was with the correct quote form the book referenced. thanks again M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.250.204 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but it IS seen in reference #4 - specifically "Mr Reed, of Hallam College, Melbourne, said: “Kate and Helena’s families were very close, very wealthy and belonged to the same Unitarian Church." Is there a specific reason you are wanting to remove that reference and replace it with the other information. More accurately both should probably exist. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry - I only read the book quote - not the newspapers. Do you think we should put in the refs. to BOTH Birmingham's Unitarian Church of the Messiah Church AND the political conferences? You decide. - I think both is a good idea. Are you able to do it please - with a quote from  the newspaper article too regarding the cousin's member ship of Birmingham's Unitarian Church of the Messiah?? Thanks so much for your clever detective work.101.182.250.204 (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Irkalla
Hello. On Talk:Irkalla you ask for more information to establish that ersetu is the commonname. What is wrong with the information I already provided: the preference for Ersetu comes from Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, p. 273:
 * Akkadian ersetu is the most common Akkadian name for both the earth and underworld [...]

BoH (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If something is common then you should be able to find more than one reference to support this. Furthermore since it recently had the reverse move supported, it takes a bit more discussion and support to move it back. Can you provide additional reliable sources? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the recent reversal was done by an IP without arguments. Second of all, there is no support for Irkalla. Third, more importantly:
 * The most common name for this place was the Sumerian kur (Akkadian ersetu), but it was also known as 'arali, irkalla, kukku, ekur, kigal, ganzir (Black and Green 1997, p. 180). Creation Stories of the Middle East
 * So, if you want to use Akkadian, use ersetu. BoH (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it was initially created in 2003 as Irkalla, then in August of this year you moved the page without discussion to Ersetu. Then in September, an administrator, performed the move back to Irkalla after a requested move was made by an IP editor. It was an admin who made the move, the fact it was requested by an IP is irrelevant. At the time the move was approved, there was no opposition to the move, just a weak support and the nom itself. BDD made a comment, but didn't oppose. As such that move was supported by consensus. Two weeks later it appears you created the request to return the name to Irkalla, and after a relist lasting 2 weeks there was no opinions presented in this move. I posted a comment which you did not reply to -- 6 days later I closed it. While the WP:RM process normally is to accept a move that is uncontested, the fact that it was previously and recently renamed with specific consensus, it take a bit more than an empty discussion to warrant reverting an approved move that at least had some discussion to it. You are welcome to ask for a new move request and present your additional facts there, but this talk is not the time or place to introduce more discussion about a closed request. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My job does not always allow me to respond immediately, something you can relate to, I assume.
 * What bothers me, is that you present the case as if the consensus was based on a thorough discussion, while in reality the only one who gave arguments was me. No arguments have been given on why Irkalla should prevail. That moderators have chosen to keep the name Irkalla is true, but seems to be more because of a lack of interest to investigate further. One might even call it laziness.
 * Disappointing as well is that you only respond to procedural arguments and not to the substantive arguments given by me. Accountability is not part of the procedures? BoH (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand not responding as real life needs also come up taking people away from contributing to or responding on wiki. Your statement suggests you believe there was consensus reached, and that is exactly opposite of how this move was closed. It was closed without consensus - that is there was not significant information to either accept or deny the move. There is a difference between not finding consensus, and consensus is against moving. Please do not confuse the two as being the same. There was community consensus to move it to Irkalla, which I was not involved with, and your request to effectively revert that change was met without comment from others. Since your move request was basically a reversal of community consensus, that discussion weighs into your request, effectively as oppose !votes. As such, the burden to revert a community consensus is more than an empty discussion. That is why I prompted you to provide additional reasoning, and also relisted it in the effort to involve more editors in the discussion. Since you did not respond to request for more information, which I can understand, that does not change that it was closed without further comment after two weeks. To that regard, how long should we have waited for you to respond on wiki? The responsibility of the closing editor is to determine community consensus based on weighing the information provided; and it is not the responsibility of the closing editor to research the issues at hand independently which is a WP:SUPERVOTE and is discouraged. Closer are uninvolved editors who have an unbiased opinion of the requested move; rather we weigh the information provided. Unfortunately for you there was the prior community consensus, creating precedent, that the name stay at Irkalla, without a new discussion there was no consensus to move the article. Remember Irkalla was the initial name, you changed without community discussion, the community came together to revert the name back to Irkalla. There is significant weight to the fact that the community wants this at Irkalla, meaning it will take more than a simple undiscussed move request to make this change occur. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Community consensus sounds impressive. What however, was this 'community'? It was 65.129.129.249, ONR and BDD.
 * 65.129.129.249 stated: Preference for Akkadian name is inexplicable and not matched by article contents. This is not true, as I had already given Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography as the base of my changes in the article. Of the other references, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia does not mention Irkalla, while The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels menstions it as one of the many names of the underworld (see page 171).
 * ONR than gives weak support, without arguments however.
 * BDD states it has to be something.
 * All in all a very unconvincing discussion, and now I'm stretching the meaning of the word discussion. Calling this 'community consensus' is laughable. Especially since I have given two sources supporting my statements. BoH (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You actually provided only one reference in your move request, to introduce a second reference here after the close is not relevant to if the closing of the move was appropriate. As a community this name has stood uncontested since 2003, over 12 years ago. You moved it without discussion or consensus on August, and a month later it was brought up to have it moved back. (See WP:BLD) Like it or not, the consensus at the time was to restore its original article title. Your attempts to have it reverted back was not supported by anyone. While I appreciate that you are striving for a better title, it appears that no one supports you in this endeavor, at least they haven't publicly posted as such. It is not my place to perform the research into this because I'm not voting or providing my position on this matter. A closer's responsibility is to weigh the merits of the discussion. Since there was no discussion, and it was relisted twice in an attempt to gather more discussion, it was closed. Because this move is effectively contested, because of a very recent successful move request, the onus was on you to have more people participate in the discussion. It would have been one matter if other editors supported your position, but in this move request, there was no support. With regards to BDD, while he wasn't sure what it should be, he did not oppose the name change - thus, it leaves your argument without support. That is why it was closed. Since it was effectively contested by precedent, it was closed as no-consensus. Realize this is very different from "not moved" which would state that there is consensus to not move. Since that is the case you are more than welcome to open a new request to move, however be prepared to gather other editors to comment on the new RM by contacting the appropriate projects, article contributors or other people involved in the prior RMs -- just be sure to avoid inappropriate WP:CANVASSING. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will see whether I want to continue this. It is a bit frustrating however that substantive arguments play such a small role in the whole process, especially for articles that arouse so little attention that it is hard to bring together enough people for a substantive discussion. In practice it results in decisions by random passersby. Thanks anyway. BoH (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. If you decide to take another attempt at it, you might want to consider some of these additional resources available to you: WP:Third opinion, WP:RfC, WP:Pump are all appropriate, as well as reaching out to members of the WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Ancient Near East, and WikiProject Mythology. There you should be find some other interested editors who will do equal research and comment on a future proposed move. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Followed it down the rabbit hole...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taylorguida was the original editor, they are inactive now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see it now. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2015

(UTC)

Sophie, Countess of Wessex
I have had trouble with dates in an edit a few hours ago. Please check

Sophie, countess of Essex page - please check ref 29 thanks Srbernadette (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean Sophie, Countess of Wessex page - sorry Srbernadette (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:ACC request
Hello Tj, hope you're doing well. Would you please hop in the tool for a minute and take a look at 159320? Thanks and regards— UY Scuti Talk  08:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem Tiggerjay (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

✅ Tiggerjay (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Move pending G6
Hi. You recently closed a move request for The Love of Siam as pending G6 deletion of the target page, but I just wanted to point out that this wasn't necessary; the target page had only one version in its history which was a redirect to the main article. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in such situations, the page can be moved and overwritten without admin privileges. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul, I was not aware of that. Was there some sort of policy change, because I know previously that was not possible. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure it's always been this way. More details are at Moving a page. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Merry Christmas to you! 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)