User talk:Music1201

Talk:OS X#Requested move 13 June 2016 - Reopen and relist?

Could you please reopen and relist Talk:OS X#Requested move 13 June 2016? Yes, consensus was not clear, but it was never relisted to allow consensus to have a chance to become clearer. (For reference, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22#MacOS.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: RMs run for 7 days. Relisting only occurs if no discussion has occurred in those 7 days. — Music1201 ^talk 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I recall someone else brought up a similar issue regarding your move closes on your talk page in the past. Long story short, if you will not relist it, I will bring the move discussion up at WP:MRV. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: There was no consensus to move the article. If you disagree, go ahead and list at WP:MRV. — Music1201 ^talk 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of there not being consensus; it's a matter of the fact that the discussion was not relisted when there wasn't. (You did something similar at Talk:Drake (rapper)#Requested move 27 May 2016, another close that should have been relisted instead.) Anyways, I just reviewed Talk:OS X, and I think I'll hold off on that WP:MRV. Turns out that someone else decided to fork the move discussion into an "unofficial" move discussion about a week ago. Though I honestly think that the discussion you closed should have been relisted instead of closed (considering Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting; it is customary for discussions with no clear consensus to be relisted at least once to help create clearer consensus), the discussion fork that was started at Talk:OS X#Different proposal of renaming when macOS Sierra releases has essentially disrupted the helpfulness of relisting the discussion you closed. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, what I'm trying to relay to you is that both of the aforementioned discussions you closed ended up being figuratively "relisted" by other editors, in my opinion because there wasn't ample time provided to those discussions to convince other editors that the consensus will never become clearer. I close RMs from time-to-time myself, and I can tell you from experience that in 9/10 cases, closing discussions to "no consensus" without at least one relist ends up with a new discussion starting (usually WP:RM but sometimes WP:RFD) or the move request going to WP:MRV with the argument that it should have been relisted due to not enough time being given to the discussion to allow consensus the chance to become clearer. If 2–3 weeks pass since the start of the discussion and it still doesn't become clearer, then it is almost completely clear at that point that it never will, making for there to be almost no chance that a new discussion will start again ... but in that case, if it did, most editors who participate in the new discussion will most likely vote "speedy close". Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:14:32, 26 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CityGirl2

• CityGirl2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Association of Voting Officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm stunned that the article was declined. I asked for help, chatted with the original reviewer, followed all directions, was complimented on my references, yet you don't see the validity. Quite frankly, there is only one reference that can be directly linked to the subject of the article (a news item from their website). I purposefully searched tirelessly for references that were NOT from their website alone. I used two wikipedia articles as guides - Open Voting Consortium, and Open Source Initiative - the latter has 22 references, 18 of which are from their website. Please help me understand how using a peer-reviewed journal, world renowned newspapers, and City/County departments can be considered unreliable or unverifiable. Thank you for your time. CityGirl2 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CityGirl2 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:17:20, 26 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CityGirl2

• CityGirl2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Association of Voting Officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - wondering if you can respond to my inquiry. Only one of my references is connected to the subject's website, the rest are journals, well-respected newspapers and media. I followed all directions given from help desk assistance and the prior reviewer, who referred to my references as "excellent". Thanks again for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CityGirl2 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@CityGirl2: The sources are very good and references are not an issue with this draft because several third-party sources have been listed. The problem now is that the draft has a promotional tone and needs to have a neutral point of view. — Music1201 ^talk 02:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

03:10:09, 26 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2

• CityGirl2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Association of Voting Officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the reply. The only major thing I changed from my first submission was the addition of the "Overview" section, since the first reviewer said the issue was notability and significant coverage. Since this is a Presidential election year, the addition of this information addressed that initial comment/issue. My writing style's intent in this article is not to debate or convince, but to inform. I cite facts, not opinions. I'm not interested in advertising anything. I have friends who work for Wikimedia Foundation and respect the platform immensely. Is there anything specific you can suggest I do so that it qualifies for resubmission? Many thanks for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

04:53:50, 26 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2

• CityGirl2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Association of Voting Officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - I changed some wording to have a more neutral tone, and added some information that is more balanced (i.e. not favouring one side over another). Would you kindly look it over and let me know if I'm on the right track? Many thanks for your time and assistance.CityGirl2 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Maps's move

Hello, You've moved my maps to the commons but made it wrongly (File:Dzama river basin on the Shida Kartli map.svg; File:East Prone river basin on the Shida Kartli map.svg) so please be more careful or don't move anymore and I'll ask others. Thanks --g. balaxaZe★ 13:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

deletionFinder

Hi Music1201. Thanks for doing NPP! Further to José Rafael Cordero Sánchez, the 288th known attempt to write about himself José makes cross-wiki cf. the centralized LTA file on Dutch Wikipedia, let me introduce you to a script that is an invaluable time-saver at NPP: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js. It checks to see if a page has been previously deleted or discussed at AfD, and if it has, deletionFinder.js provides links to the deletion log and/or AfDs to the right of the article title. Install it by adding the following to your common.js or your skin script file: {{subst:js|User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js}}, save and bypass your browser cache. For an example go to Emil Nielsen where, to the right of the article title, you see the blue prev dels and prev AfDs links when the script has been been loaded. Regards, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Scream Street (TV series)

Hello, You are incorrect about Scream Street (TV series) not being something that really exists. The show DOES exist and the article now contains sources to prove it. Please do not wrongly accuse me of making a page about something fake again.

Thank you, Pug05 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Round-robin

Hi Music1201, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Americans. I made this redirect from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

your rejection of a correction to a semi-protected page was unworthy of rejection and I strongly suggest you research the request prior to making blank accusations about an edit's verifiability, kind sir

reGARDING this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANovak_Djokovic&type=revision&diff=719327536&oldid=719285006

You were wrong, and someone else made the request the next day. I'm not sure why you rejected this request. It was valid, and you need to be aware of your mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The subsequent edit request, unlike yours, was backed up by reliable sources. We can't just insert information that is supposedly true when there's nothing to verify it. Omni Flames (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gee, you could have just looked it up. Just make that page editable anyway. OBviously I'm not trying to make errors to pages. But wikipedia doesn't care. It's a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@98.204.228.159: In the future, please make sure your edit requests are backed by reliable sources. — Music1201 ^talk 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

do you see any evidence of me making or requesting an improper edit in the main or template namespaces? Assume good faith or something?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how we do things around here. If you want something added to an article, you have to find a source to back it up. It's not the job of the processor of the edit request to do all the research so that a poorly sourced request can be enacted. Omni Flames (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No other editor has ever denied my request on that article. I suggest that you patrol only topics that you understand. Anyone paying attention to tennis would have known that was a legitimate request.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)