User talk:SkyWarrior
|
WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE! Click here to leave me a message Need to message me in private? Send me an email |
thanks man
Thanks for creating my account Have a great day SabexRLG (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Have a nice day yourself. SkyWarrior 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Sri Harmandir Sahib page name
Hi! Really new to Wikipedia so you'll have to help me out if I'm doing something wrong!
I've found that the Sri Harmandir Sahib Wikipedia page is called "Golden Temple" because of the popularity of the name "Golden Temple". However, that's not what the Gurdwara is called. It's official name is Sri Harmindar Sahib. I'm comparing this to the Wiki pages of the Gherkin in London and Ayers Rock, both titled by their official names, despite popularity (especially as the Gherkin is called the Gherkin my certainly most people). I'm offering this, as many Sikhs feel that the name Golden Temple is disrespectful.
What do you think? I think that if you disagree, that perhaps I should edit the page to suggest that "Golden Temple" is the nickname given to Sri Harmindar Sahib.
AjeetSamra (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Error in close
Regarding this close, RickinBaltimore is not a checkuser. When he mentions "confirmed" in his appeal decline, he's talking about my CU confirmation.-- Ponyobons mots 21:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Whoops, my bad. I amended the close to remove the error. SkyWarrior 21:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- No biggie. Thanks for amending.-- Ponyobons mots 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Undo all of the animals with reliable sources (including YouTube) in every zoo!
Please undo and add all of the animals in my zoo with reliable sources, now. GeorgeTigerZebraLeopardPeacockZOO (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Willondon explained it to you well on your talk page, but to give you a short summary: no, YouTube videos are not reliable sources, especially not those from some random YouTuber who doesn't appear to have any official relationship with the zoos in question. SkyWarrior 03:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
You closed the above as "not moved. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a move at this time."
This would make every bit of sense if the RtM was for the initial move. However, the initial move had already occurred without discussion, was reverted (showing cause for opposition), then RE-reverted by the original mover (in violation of WP:RMUM), at which point discussion was opened rather than join in the move-war (a BRRD situation).
If there isn't "much of an appetite for a move", then the status quo ante should be restored.
This was documented in that section:
- Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." [underline added; two further explanatory paragraphs not quoted] The underlined situation appears to be the case here.
Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. – .Raven .talk 22:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Raven: I will not. I would argue that the current title is the most recent stable title. The last time the article was moved (before the brief move war last month) was in 2019, about 4 years ago. In my opinion, if an article title remains at one location for at least a year or two, then I would argue that it's "stable". Also, the only person who participated in that discussion who supported a move is you; the other people who commented opposed, so it wasn't a "no consensus" close anyways.
- If you still disagree with my closure, you are welcome to open a move review. SkyWarrior 23:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "In my opinion, if an article title remains at one location for at least a year or two, then I would argue that it's 'stable'." — The article was created 27 April 2004 as simply "N'Ko", variously moved or split between 6 November 2006 and 9 November 2006, was moved by Kwamikagami on 8 June 2010 to "N'Ko script" for the first time with no discussion on the talkpage; moved by Kwamikagami again on 31 July 2011 to "N'Ko alphabet"; nearly EIGHT years later on 15 March 2019 moved to "N'Ko script" the second time, at Kwamikagami's request on WP:RM/TR, still with no discussion on the talk page. Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it."So that move to "N'Ko script" having been challenged by reversion, the status quo ante in this case is the prior title "N'Ko alphabet", here for nearly EIGHT years, and Kwamikagami's own choice of title during that time. The fact that the mover RE-reverted that 2023 challenging reversion, a move-war in order to keep their move the current status quo, does not privilege it.Again, please re-consider your decision. – .Raven .talk 01:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, if you want, open a move review. You also skipped over the second half of my comment which is that the discussion wasn't a "no consensus" close, it was a "no one except the nominator supported the move" close, and as such the whole "revert to status quo" thing is irrelevant. SkyWarrior 01:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "... the other people who commented opposed...." – One was kwami, the original mover; the other, DePiep, argued, "Then, Manding languages is plural. That says it." As I replied, in part:
- (1) "Your own 'Alphabet is specific to one or more languages. Still, in the singular phrasing, to me it reads like covered as well. Somehow, the singular one does not exclude the plural (it does not exclude another language). If I am correct in this, we can use the simpler option.'"
- ... and...
- (2) "Then Manding languages is plural. — That article's lede begins: The Manding languages (sometimes spelt Manden) are a dialect continuum within the Mande language family spoken in West Africa. Varieties of Manding are generally considered (among native speakers) to be mutually intelligible – dependent on exposure or familiarity with dialects between speakers – and spoken by 30 to 40 million people.... [underline added]"
- Consensus is not determined simply by counting !votes; the reasons given matter. – .Raven .talk 02:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- > "In my opinion, if an article title remains at one location for at least a year or two, then I would argue that it's 'stable'." — The article was created 27 April 2004 as simply "N'Ko", variously moved or split between 6 November 2006 and 9 November 2006, was moved by Kwamikagami on 8 June 2010 to "N'Ko script" for the first time with no discussion on the talkpage; moved by Kwamikagami again on 31 July 2011 to "N'Ko alphabet"; nearly EIGHT years later on 15 March 2019 moved to "N'Ko script" the second time, at Kwamikagami's request on WP:RM/TR, still with no discussion on the talk page. Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it."So that move to "N'Ko script" having been challenged by reversion, the status quo ante in this case is the prior title "N'Ko alphabet", here for nearly EIGHT years, and Kwamikagami's own choice of title during that time. The fact that the mover RE-reverted that 2023 challenging reversion, a move-war in order to keep their move the current status quo, does not privilege it.Again, please re-consider your decision. – .Raven .talk 01:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)