User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 12

Happy New Year, Wbm1058!


Happy New Year! Wbm1058, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amakuru, happy new year to you too! wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters
Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Haut-Brion 1931 chateau card.JPG
 * File:Petrus 1931 chateau card.JPG
 * File:Margaux 1931 chateau card.JPG
 * File:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG
 * Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To do: possible merge of Non-free use rationale and Non-free use rationale 2

For that matter, Non-free use rationale 2 and Non-free use rationale logo are also somewhat redundant, as shown by the usage of both here. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 17. Nice. Thanks User:Sdkb! It will be nice to finally clear this off my to-do list (talk page). (wow, what a lengthy discussion to form a consensus to do something that seemed obvious to me nine years ago!) wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating r cats
I like to leave the occasional redirect with an out-of-date r cat so that you aren't left without maintenace categories to sift through. Thanks for the ping, and for limiting your reproach because I am only #29 in content contributed to WP:RMCI. SilverLocust 💬 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:OTRS topicon
Template:OTRS topicon has been nominated for merging with Template:Volunteer Response Team topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI
I pinged you to the discussion at Primefac's page, re: the VRT topicon.  Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Eric Harris a neo-Nazi?
If you look at Harris's journal entries, they mention him idolizing and praising Hitler and the Nazis. Also in the audiobook series The War on Everyone (a documentary on the history of American fascism), it lays clear that in addition to Harris idolizing Hitler and the Nazis, he also shared a number of ideological similarities to them, such as hatred of free speech & the press and the desire to have less-than-able people executed. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit to Template:Neo-Nazism because, as I said in my edit summary, Eric Harris is not independently notable – he is the subject of a joint biography. Per the target article "Some people, such as Robyn Anderson, who knew the perpetrators, stated that the pair were not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Hitler in any way." Template:Neo-Nazism is not a place for dumping the name of every person you believe is or has been a neo-Nazi. It should be reserved for people who are primarily known as neo-Nazis. Harris is primarily known as an infamous school shooter, not as a neo-Nazi. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Single A
Sorry, forgot to do that - never have before, hopefully won't again. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

V2 rocket edit
Hi wbm1058, refer this discussion at wp:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles for an explanation of my edit on the V-2 rocket article Ilenart626 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anglican Church" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglican_Church&redirect=no Anglican Church] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Suno Chanda 2
You are correct about this. Seems to have been part of a larger SOCK history revert and must have assumed it was a newer creation. Thanks for moving back to mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirect
Regarding your question here, it was almost certainly a mistake on my part. Thanks for fixing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-close of pakeha settlers RM...
Hi, can you please explain how your reclose is not a blatant supervote? Rather than summarizing arguments made in the RM, you are explicitly applying your own opinion and analysis. Your close literally dismisses the opposers' TIES claims, which was the sole rationale offered by almost all the oppose !votes, so from where in that discussion are you drawing the conclusion that the majority of P&G-based arguments were against moving to "European settlers..."? You also ignore major points made by supporters, such as the guidance on TITLES being especially against unfamiliar terminology, the clear analogy made by @LokiTheLiar and others to "crore" explicitly being discouraged even in article prose in favor of universally-understood terms, the numerous examples of CONSISTENCY reported by @Roman Spinner, the overwhelming evidence that NZ academics and news sources in the last five years prefer "European settlers" in the context of NZ colonization, etc., and instead opine on numerous points no one made in the discussion and perform your own research! JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with JoelleJay; as the closer, you are supposed to summarize and verify the arguments and evidence presented. In your close, you instead make novel arguments and present new evidence, but by virtue of it being a close prevent editors responding to and rebutting your arguments.
 * Further, I am discomforted by the process; going to the previous closer and effectively telling them "If you overturn your close, I'll make the same close" while a move review is proceeding and, in my opinion, was trending towards overturning to move, seems to be at odds with our standard procedures and our consensus model.
 * Given the issues with it, will you please convert your close into a !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above two. This was the WP:SUPERVOTE-y-ist close I've seen in a while: it went on for paragraphs and paragraphs about your opinion on the arguments and barely mentioned the discussion at all. Loki (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear wbm1058, I ask you to reconsider. The consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments made in the discussion, not by arguments newly introduced by the closer. Your approach to determining consensus was thoroughly improper. If I ever found myself feeling the need to preemptively write off "cries of 'supervote, I would be seriously questioning my own judgment. Please undo your action. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, WP:DTS. You have here an opportunity to informally discuss the title issue on the article's talk page. I suggest ya'll carpe diem!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

PS. Just a gentle reminder that "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure."  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate you closing in favour of my preferred option I don’t believe you are the right editor to do so; your participation in the discussion, even without !voting, has made you WP:INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Requested moves/Closing instructions, a relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you became a participant, presenting extensive arguments. I ask that you withdraw your close and permit an uninvolved editor to close. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058; are you going to respond to my request? Considering that I'm not the only editor seeing this issue, I believe the only appropriate action is to withdraw your close. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Come on, the close outcome is clearly the only one possible considering how the discussion went, so does it really matter who did it? I also think summarizing a discussion once for the relisting is effectively preparation for a later close, it didn't make wbm1058 an involved participant who couldn't do the close themselves – if anything, that preparation made them uniquely well prepared to close. Time to move on; this thing is settled and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058 went beyond summarizing in their relist and presented novel arguments (for example, their arguments about naturalness); they became involved.
 * Further, we shouldn't accept involved closes just because they are right; we should make it clear to all editors, particularly administrators, that they should never close discussions they are involved with. I'm also not convinced that everything Wbm1058 said in their close summary is accurate or appropriate, but the issues there are minor compared to the involved violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This just sounds like more kicking of a dead horse. But I was wrong before when I said that, so I could be wrong again. When I closed as no consensus, I did recognize that it would not take much more support to gain a rough consensus, and the survey and discussion certainly went past that to achieve an unquestionable consensus. Forgive me BilledMammal, but I think your valid concerns still constitute a bureaucratic process that should be countered by WP:IAR. This particular admin is quite knowledgable about the RM process, so we should probably accede to his closure, don't you think?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 08:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing that I was involved in a dispute. Which side do you think I took in that dispute? MAGA or RINO? You're telling me that I'm incapable of making an objective decision. I disagree. You think I have strong feelings about the matter, despite my clear indication that I was content to not move the page. Suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved, yet you seem to think I was making arguments rather than suggestions. I disagree.

OK, there is one matter about which I do have strong feelings. Discussions should not be allowed to go on forever. Editors who are allowed to abuse "consensus can change", and keep arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing until they finally get their way are not healthy for the project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not wish to say all of this explicitly because it has a potential to be misconstrued and personalised, but under the agreement that you will consider this a position on abstract principles rather than an accusation on your person, here's the involved policy applied to this particular case:You made non-administrative comments in the discussion (the matter of n-grams). That was in addition to your previous close that was deemed a supervote by enough people to convince you to vacate it, and was subsequently added to the discussion and became a part of the discussion that other participants engaged with.Having first closed as not-moved and been accused of supervoting, you had an incentive to close it the other way to do a "See, I was not biased, I was only reading consensus. What did I tell you?"If you had a bias toward "not moved", you also had an incentive to make an involved close for "moved" when the consensus started to be clear for it, so that the legitimacy of that consensus can be easily challenged now or in the future.Again, I don't believe any of these is true. But these are the reasons that make you involved and why you should not have been the one to close. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I hear you. In an ideal world we would have an unlimited supply of fresh administrators willing to invest a couple hours in getting themselves up to speed on all lengthy discussions, and promptly close them, and we would have no need for non-administrative closes. We would not have a backlog of two dozen discussions remaining open after a full month. At the time I closed this, it had already spent a full day in "elapsed listing" status, and had fallen well into the backlog. I did not over-speedily close this without giving anyone else an opportunity to close it before I did. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Saw lots of activity going on here and, upon checking, find that Wbm1058 probably deserves a barnstar for sticking with the topic. I've seen scores of long and well-argued discussions topped off by drive-by closers who do two or more closes or relistings in a minute or two, and these make me wonder for a millisecond why I discuss these things at all if the comments aren't really read and analyzed by the closer (but of course I continue commenting "for the record"). Nice work on this close, and Wbm1058 will probably dream in New Zealandish for a few nights. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I am more coming from "in an ideal world..." than "this close was wrong...". I guess we'll see. I do appreciate the amount of time and effort you put in to try and resolve it.<span id="Usedtobecool:1710600869142:User_talkFTTCLNWbm1058" class="FTTCmt"> — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

On your recent close
While I'm certainly not going to be appealing your close, I am also quite certain that the arguments I paraphrased as follows are not policy-compliant and should have been discounted:

I don't think it was good practice for you to endorse such arguments by saying I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount,  as you did in your close. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, from the opinions which were neither too long to read nor incomprehensible. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If that was trying to say that pākehā was not a "real" word, I disagree with that. It's in the dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One active contributor to the discussion did argue that Maori words don't belong in an English encyclopaedia and that Maori flags don't belong on his flagpole. But I digress.
 * More importantly, based on the nose count used to calculate your percentages, I am morally certain you included !votes without a sound basis in policy, whether incomprehebsible or not. And that kind of nose counting - which is part of a vicious cycle - is what drives me (and some other editors) to cynicism about RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The ship sailed a long time ago on trying to keep non-English words out of the English Wikipedia. Recently, in my work as a gnome, I've found myself instructed to make spelling corrections, where the only "misspelling" is not actually a letter, but just the wrong diacritic appearing over the letter. I lack the expertise to know whether a diacritic has been correctly used or not, and don't enjoy having to maintain such a high level of "perfection". English itself makes very limited use of diacritics, and I'd prefer the community to just not use them in the English words.
 * Remember that the titling criteria are goals, not rules. Relatively little about titles goes so far as to violate policies, rather than bend some goals, usually in favor of other, contradictory goals. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wbm, while I am not going to be appealing either—I am not looking into the the substance of it—you simply should not have closed. By reopening/relisting the last time, when you were asked to on the basis that your close rationale was a supervote, and then putting your close rationale into the discussion, you became very involved. It's not the kind of discussion an involved editor should be closing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please see my response to editor BilledMammal [above]. Thank you!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 08:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:European_settlers_in_New_Zealand
I would prefer to avoid taking this to yet another move review. Instead, I was hoping you would be willing to strike the last sentence of your close, both because you are too involved in the discussion to make such an assessment, and because I don't see any basis in the discussion to say that there is a consensus for this "common ground", and your close doesn't explain why you see there to be such a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer to not see this move reviewed yet again too. I thought all the drama over this was done when I archived the topic. Regarding the persistent allegations that I'm somehow "involved" – I've never set foot in New Zealand, and was unfamiliar with the term "pakeha" before I came upon this RM. In my view, one must at least be aware of a topic in order to have "strong feelings" about it. I never said there was a consensus for "common ground". We have common ground because there is a lack of consensus for a hard tilt in one direction over another. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that by putting it in the close statement you give your opinion the weight of consensus. As an alternative, if you reword the close to make it clear that there is no consensus for the "common ground" statement and that it is merely your opinion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again I'm not following what you're on about. Aren't all RM closes essentially the equivalent of judicial opinions, i.e. all my RM closes are my opinion of the consensus, or lack of it, and remedies for dealing with the lack of consensus if there is one. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No; judicial opinions involve the judges opinion, while the closer should not be interjecting their opinion - and doing so would be a WP:SUPERVOTE.
 * Further, if there is a lack of consensus it isn't the closers responsibility or right to create a consensus - all they can say is that there is no consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a concept called administrative discretion (discretion). A search of project space finds this concept is frequently asserted. In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of non-administrator closes, and these closes have increasingly crept into territory where administrative discretion probably should be applied. The result is that "administrative discretion" is becoming a quaint and forgotten concept on Wikipedia. This is not healthy for the project, and this creep has led to increasing backlogs of discussions which are almost impossible to close.
 * I did not "create" a consensus. I found a (weak) consensus to move the page to European settlers in New Zealand, and no consensus to purge the term "pakeha" from the English language. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

abbreviation and your revert
Why did you revert my edit? I just put an abbreviation and didn't claim that it's an improvement. There are many problematic edits here hope you also spend your time to correct or revert those edits which are "really" problematic. Egeymi (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is my relevant edit. belated reply. There is a note about this on my bot account's user page User:RMCD bot. One of its listed tasks:
 * Notifying talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts and whose talk pages transclude templates beginning  of moves of interest. (version 5.00)
 * See User:Scott/Notes/WikiProject template redirects. Perhaps the bot should also look for talk pages that transclude templates beginning.
 * In this particular case it's not an issue because WikiProject Magazines/Article alerts exists, but if that page did not exist, my bot would not post a notice of this requested move on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines page with the WP Magazines template on Talk:Shukan Shincho, whereas it would with the WikiProject Magazines template. Bots do not automatically follow redirects, and extra coding effort needs to be made to make that happen.
 * There, I've taken the time to explain my reason. Apparently your reason is nothing more than "because I like it that way", if I'm understanding you correctly. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Finnster" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finnster&redirect=no Finnster] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MGA
Just curious, but why did you undelete ? The deleted content is not the same as the redirect, so restoration doesn't really make sense. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems similar enough to me. I'm confused about what the problem is, but then I'm also confused about why there are so many terms that seem to mean the same thing, but don't actually mean the same thing? wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, really, just didn't see the point in restoring a (deleted) non-redirect when the new content is a redirect so was wondering if I missed a refund request or something. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous editor claimed that the term was "incorrect". I restored the history to show that there was, in past edits, some basis for claims that the term is actually a (correct) valid alternative. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)