User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 10

Terms for Sports
If someone refers to "football", what they mean depends on what English-speaking country they are from. In North America, it means gridiron football, either under American rules or under Canadian rules. In Australia, it means Australian rules football. In other countries, it typically means association football or soccer. Also, if someone refers to "hockey", what they mean depends on where they are. In North America and Northern Europe, that means ice hockey. In some parts of the world, it generally means field hockey. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok so I was aware that football in America meant American football. Was not really aware about different rules in Australia though... Didn't know this thing existed for hockey as well.. I guess this is something I can figure it in my free time! Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many games that are all called football in different countries. Some of them are forms of rugby.  In North America, they are gridiron football, American or Canadian rules.  The most widely played is association football or soccer.  Hockey often means ice hockey, which is among other things the national winter game of Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This was sure enlightening as a usual DRN close became a sports discussion! This is indeed interesting even so on how one can be misinterpreted when talking cross countries... I'll bet there are many such more examples... Thanks once again! Oh and ya, just reminding you again.. Day after is the switch over for the coordinator. I've nominated myself but want to know what you think about me in this regard? Yashovardhan (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to know how and when to close. Go ahead and take it on 1 June.  Just don't try to settle any disputes by a game of football without saying that it is under FIFA rules, or by a game of basketball without saying what level is to be played at.  (Basketball is always the same sport, but the rules in details such as the length of the periods depending on whether it is played in high school, college, professionally, or internationally.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I will sure remember this when settling disputes... Rather, I will umpire a game of Cricket (played according to MCC rules) to the rescue (Just won't work for Americans). And you'll finally get your much deserved DRN Award! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. You may be umpiring cricket.  John Roberts specified, in his confirmation hearing, that he views his role as a judge as comparable to umpiring baseball.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And cricket isn't played much in the United States, because a different game that is known to have a common ancestor with cricket, but about six hundred years ago, is played in the United States, which is baseball. (The history of the various football games is less ancient and is better recorded.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, how could I forget baseball. But I will claim some exemption here. I am as uneducated about baseball as I was about American Football. All I know for sure is that they just hit the ball and run without caring for their bat. They run in a square region (across 4 bases?) and the bat is well, differently shaped than a cricket bat. Of course, the pitcher stands in the middle somewhere. That's all I know about baseball. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That describes baseball. There are four bases in a square, and the pitcher stands in the middle of the square.  The ball is a lot harder to hit than a cricket ball, and usually the batter doesn't hit it.  If he doesn't hit it, the umpire calls it.  (That is what Justice Roberts was talking about.)  When he does, he and any other runners run.  You don't need to know much about it, and I don't know much about cricket.  They had a common ancestor, now forgotten, about six hundred years ago.  The various forms of football had a common ancestor two hundred years ago.  It was called English town football, and the teams consisted of anywhere from ten to three hundred men, that is, whole towns.  The difference between different forms of football is whether you can pick up the ball and run with it, and when and whether play stops, and a few other things.  If you can't pick it up and play is continuous, it is association football.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What It Was About
You closed a dispute, saying that it wasn't clear what the dispute was about. That was true. It had to do with a particular translation of the Bible, that is, Christian Scripture, and the issue of what translation of the Bible is best has long been a contentious issue among Christians. They hadn't discussed it properly. Also, there was non-neutral language, including language that was written in the voice of a particular Christian denomination. You were right in closing it as inadequately discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, for additional information, many disputes between Christians cannot be understood by non-Christians, or at least by non-Christians who have not studied comparative religion, but a contentious issue among Christians that should at least be understandable to anyone is disputes over what translations of Christian Scriptures are good. This dispute was a dispute over translating the Bible.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I fail to understand such disputes. I will try and let a Christian volunteer handle such cases unless they are simply open and shut ones (like clearly no discussion at all). Yashovardhan (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will comment on the DRN talk page. It isn't necessary for a volunteer to understand the dispute.  The participants should explain to the volunteer what it is about.  The reason I didn't handle Four Noble Truths is not that I am not a Buddhist, but that I had previous experience with the dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

moving help
Hi again. I moved State of the Onion on a technical request using the swap feature, but it didn't swap the histories with State of the Onion (book) why? I moved it twice because the first time was “State of the Onion (book)” redirected to the same State of the Onion (book) for some reason, which was probably wrong – didn’t see if the histories matched though. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there somewhere you can practice moving pages? I still need to get the hang of this. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what happened there. Maybe the page history mentioning that you performed a page move is meant to be there to link the histories together. What I noticed is that the move was performed possibly twice (with a few minutes gap in between) according to the page history. You can try moving pages in your user space for sure. I am not aware of any sandbox for this specifically. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to fix it? And also when you are first looking to swap two pages, should you swap the current redirect page with the article, or the other way around (if that makes sense)? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You could request a History merge but I doubt if that's even required. What I do is go to the page where the current article is, press swap and enter the name of the place where the current redirect is (and the article should be). You also have to fix the redirect to point to the new location after the move (if you haven't already done so) and fix potential double redirects. Round robin moves are not that easy, you see. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You might also wanna see the logs. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Lucas Horton" closure
Hello. Just to notify you about the results at Move review/Log/2017 May, which you can read it yourself. I won't say much in this message, so cheers. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So sorry for the late reply. I had already seen the discussion closure when it was closed. Even though I did not comment there, I was still watching the discussion. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make things clear, I did not expect that I will be admonished for this particular move. But nevermind, I have learned my lesson. I now provide clear cut rationales before closing a slightly contentious move (as you can see here) and leave complex ones for the admins (with a huge backlog of course . Turns out, this move review was rather good for me. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that admonishment was a bit strong and the example close that you used above was much better. I hope you don't mind if I point out a small detail with respect to it. Google books is a little different than web searches. See Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. from WP:SET. Properly quoted Ngrams and book searches tend to get weighted a little heavier than other searches when deciding common name. PaleAqua  (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out . You think I need to change that closure? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably fine, as you noted WP:ENGVAR seems to be the strongest argument. I just mentioned the google book and ngram thing since it's something that gets picked up occasionally in move reviews and the like for future reference. I could see "not moved" as also being within closer discretion taking WP:SET and the google book comments into account. In practice the only difference that would make is how long before another RM could be opened; "no consensus" results don't have prejudice against immediate future requested moves unlike the typical 6-months of "Not moved"/"Moved". PaleAqua  (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks . Make sure you follow the COI policy carefully! Yashovardhan (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Yashovardhan Dhanania. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AYashovardhan_Dhanania enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thanks a ton . Yashovardhan (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Email
WCM email 14:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR....
You may wish to check this edit.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 04:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1
You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Talkback
 Programming Geek talk to me 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)