User talk:Dekimasu


I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments, and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably. Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Move review for Natchez

An editor has asked for a Move review of Natchez. 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. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I have replied at the move review. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Connecticut, 1788–89

Regarding the RM you recently closed at Talk:United States presidential election in Connecticut, 1788–89 § Requested move 29 January 2018, shouldn't the pages have been moved to "... 1788–1789" rather than "...1788–89"? I believe there was unanimous consensus on that (apart from the nominator who didn't comment either way, as their first and to-date only edit was to make the nomination in the first place). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this. I'll move them to where they're supposed to be as soon as possible. It was an oversight on my part (I was too worried about making sure I made redirects from the hyphenated versions). Dekimasuよ! 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Review

If you guarantee that you will unblock me and will block the administrator who blocks me, then I will withdraw the Move Review and open a new Requested Move. I do not want to be blocked. New2018Year (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feeling for Trump or politics but I have strong feelings when there is a denial of due process. The Snow Close was manipulation and denial of due process to all of Wikipedia. New2018Year (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not going to block someone who blocks you. But if for some reason you are blocked as a direct result of putting a move request in, I will contribute to the discussion on an unblock request. It should not happen, because there is no reason to think any moratorium is in effect on that page, as we have said. I'd suggest that you try to remain calm, though, to avoid being blocked for a different reason entirely. Note that someone has already mentioned WP:DE. Alternatively, you can wait. The issue sat untouched for four months, so I'm not sure why the change has become urgent now. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Dekimasuよ! 22:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New2018Year - What precisely do you mean "unblock me"? Do you have another account that is blocked? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I think they are just alluding to the fact that there may be a moratorium in place on starting a move request at Trump and that if they did start one, they fear they would be immediately be blocked for flouting the moratorium. I see no evidence for there being any moratorium in place at this moment anyway, and even if there were, a good faith opening of a new move request would never result in a block, so these fears appear to be unfounded. — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New2018Year was blocked as a sock. Dekimasuよ! 01:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selves (disambiguation)

Hi, if you have a minute, would you please be able to explain why the move discussion was closed, even though none of the people who opposed it addressed any of my 2 points? I'm still just trying to understand how things work in Wikipedia. From you closing it, it seems to me that people can oppose something but then fail to address the reasons, and then it doesn't get done. My understanding of how Wikipedia works is that it's not a democracy, but a system when the merit of rationales is weighed. But this seems to disprove it. You can reply here, I've put this on my watchlist. Thanks very much! Dr. Vogel (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrVogel. First, please don't be frustrated that the request was closed without resulting in the change you requested. That's a fairly common outcome. The discussion was closed because a week (the normal period) had elapsed and there was neither evidence that consensus in favor of the move had been reached nor significant ongoing discussion indicating that we might arrive at consensus in favor of the move if the time period were extended. Again, this doesn't mean the page will never be moved as you suggested. Rather, it is more likely to occur by starting the discussion again in the future with more evidence on hand than by continuing to leave the request open. Second, my role was just to determine whether consensus (as to the merits) had been reached. Since you hadn't received any replies to your questions, I left a message for you trying to explain the reasons; actually, that's more than I usually do when I'm going through the requests. You are correct that the merits of the arguments should be weighed when determining whether or not consensus has been reached. And you are correct that citing dictionary definitions is not a strong argument one way or the other. However, the request didn't cite evidence to back your assertion that there is no primary topic, either, so the opposers may not have felt they had much to address. I noted this in my closing comments: the burden is not on those opposing the change to "justify beyond reasonable doubt that a person who types 'selves' is probably looking for 'self.'" The default is for no change to take place unless a new consensus is achieved, and in this case the discussion did not exhibit consensus in favor of a change. If you look through other recent discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, you may get the hang of what editors tend to be looking for in these cases. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for taking the time to explain. It makes a lot more sense now, I can see the logic behind what you're saying. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, could you point me to the "discussion" you mentioned in this edit summary? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 18:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe the most recent discussion is at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Update Redirect. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 02:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up

I see it's been changed again. You going to get on that? - ^theWOLFchild 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better result than the change to point to the disambiguation page, since the new target is a daughter article of the previous target. The editor who changed the other redirect did leave a message at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Redirect of AR-15 to AR-15 style rifle, and didn't get a response. Still, it's probably worth discussing (maybe at WP:RFD) if you or I have the energy to create a listing, particularly in light of the opposition at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Redirects. Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created an RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. Dekimasuよ! 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but thanks for posting the RFD, I've commented there. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

school shootings

You will notice that User:23h112e has again trashed the list of school shootings article that you recently commented on Hmains (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move and move protected the page, per the previous reversion. (I don't intend to get involved with the content changes.) Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on uncovering a sock, I had no idea. Good work, regards - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962)

Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind moving Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962) back as well until the whole shogi naming thing is resolved? I don't think page protection is needed, but this was one of the pages referred to at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi that was moved as a result of the name change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please note that this can be requested through WP:RMTR (requests to revert undiscussed moves). Dekimasuよ! 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. Also, thanks for the RMTR link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline

It appears you closed the RfC at Deadline Hollywood after only a week and just three comments, one of them neutral. RfCs generally last 30 days in order to generate a large number of comments and consensus. I believe this was closed remarkably early with nearly no one given an opportunity to comment. I would ask that the RfC be reopened and re-listed, since this appears to have been rushed through improperly.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tenebrae. The discussion you are referring to was a Wikipedia:Requested move, not a Wikipedia:Request for comment. Per WP:RM, requested moves "are generally processed after seven days," so it was not rushed through. As you can see at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, the standard interpretation is that "no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." Do you have a particular objection to the decision reached as a result of the move request? If your only question is whether my handling of the request was proper, please feel free to ask for more input at Wikipedia:Move review. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: I incorrectly thought it was an RfC. I do think this move request regarding a website with hundreds if not thousands of citations throughout Wikipedia was not publicized adequately, but that is not your fault. Thank you for taking the time to respond. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of Playboy (lifestyle) requested move

I think it would have been better to relist this for a further period rather than close it as no consensus in a situation where there were two clear supports, one tentative oppose and one sitting on the fence. Shadow007 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion wasn't ongoing (no comments for four days) and the later comments pointed out that the proposed change to the title would also involve changing the article's scope, I thought this was the correct decision. But in this case, I am happy to reopen and relist the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 17:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another move

Hi Dekimasu. Thanks for moving AAA Championships to its correct title. Any chance you can also move British Championships in Athletics to the now vacated British Athletics Championships? That is the official name of this competition [1] and was only placed at its current title for technical reasons. Thanks. SFB 22:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that third-party sources (newspapers, etc.) use the title you want to move this to? By the way, I'll take a look when I can, but I am a bit busy at the moment and you might get faster "service" at WP:RMTR. Dekimasuよ! 22:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, January 1910

With respect to your recent close of the United Kingdom general election, January 1910 requested move, can you please considering relisting the RM for wider input from the community? I should have given a more detailed rationale in the RM; not only does the article title fail WP:PRECISE, it gives the impression that the election only occurred in January. The proposed title perfectly qualified WP:CRITERIA. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that there are over 2,460 results for "January to February 1910" etc. and "election" in Google Books. Besides, it's not as if the proposal was to rename the article to United Kingdom general election, February 1910. Yet by the nature of the oppose arguments, it almost seems as if they misinterpreted the RM. Thanks.--Neve~selbert 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not under the impression that those opposing the move misunderstood the request, and I think the outcome is unlikely to change, but I will reopen the request temporarily to be sure. Dekimasuよ! 19:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

For what it's worth, I made the edit notice for a specific purpose, and by all measures, it's been quite useful in that purpose. I have, for several weeks now, actually, been asking anyone who mentioned my edit notice for specific feedback on it. I even publicly asked for commentary in that ANI thread. I was -before this all started- and remain always willing to work with other editors. What I've always been stridently (and even rudely, I'll be the first to admit) opposed to is pointless accusations, endless litigation, and self-righteous recriminations about behavioral issues. In fact, the main purpose (and effect) of my edit notice was to cut down on the amount of that going on at my talk. I edit in highly controversial areas, and as a result (and as anyone else who focuses on pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, religion and culture wars will agree) it's extremely common for editors who are new to WP or new to the subject area to take the sorts of disagreements that go on there very personally. It's understandable, really, as beliefs regarding these things can be very dear to an editor's heart. I used to get 4-5 accusations a week of being a bully, a shill, a pseudoskeptic and more because I declined to implement an edit request or explained to some editor why their edit violated our policies. I would frequently be dragged to ANI after reverting these accusations, with much the same complaints the editor I reported made about me. Those ANI cases would, invariably, be quickly dismissed. But they got tiresome, real fast.

As a result, I made that edit notice. In the months it's been up, I've only been reported at ANI twice (again: complaint dismissed both times for being obviously baseless), and I've encountered a shockingly decreased number of such complaints at my talk. On top of that, only about 2% of all the editors who've commented at my talk page said anything negative about the edit notice. About the same percentage said something positive about it. The vast majority never mentioned it. When it was deleted today, the immediate result was a thread full of recriminations, pointless litigation and bad faith accusations immediately appearing on my talk page. If anything, the events of today have gone a long way to convincing me of the utility -if not the appropriateness- of that particular edit notice.

Yet for all of that: nobody really made even the slightest effort to discuss the edit notice. They merely put me on blast for making it. So far, your comment at that thread was quite literally the only productive comment I've gotten. So thank you for that. I've told Bbb23 that I would replace it with one lacking the middle finger, and possibly lacking the cursing, as well. I will bear your comment in mind as I create a replacement edit notice. And if you have any further productive commentary on it (even if it's criticism), then you are more than welcome to do so.

tldr; You were -quite literally- the only person to offer a productive critique of my edit notice and I both appreciate it greatly, and will take it to heart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants, thank you for your note. I appreciate that editing can often be stressful, and I hope you're successful in finding a happy medium. If you'd like my opinion on any replacement notice, just let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. As I mentioned, I do not consider myself an involved editor here, and I hope the discussion reaches a consensus. Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Dekimasu. I was wondering if you could lessen the protection on Yuki Hayashi (composer) so that his fans can add more info. If not, is there any way you can insert the info for me? Or if that's not a possibility, can you allow me to edit and if there's anything that doesn't look right, you can let me know? Thanks!--Ghostory (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies on Japanese people

Thanks for splitting this out. Now it would be nice to make that into a article that is comprehensible to someone who isn't a specialist.... --Macrakis (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I added Template:Technical to the top of the article for the time being. It would be nice to know that the contents of the article are in good accord with what's left over at Japanese people, but it seems like it will be a lot of work to figure that out. Dekimasuよ! 18:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utqiaġvik, Alaska

Hello Dekimasu. Would you please start a new move discussion to replace the one you closed while we were still discussing it? 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 28bytes, Any editor is free to do so. However, I don't have an opinion on Utqiaġvik versus Utqiagvik (or Barrow), so I don't believe I would be an appropriate person to formulate a rationale or choose a proposed target for a move. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Startup (disambiguation)

Hi, just a heads-up that you forgot to add a hatnote to the Startup company page after you redirected Startup there. I am sure this is just an unintentional mistake, though do be careful in the future. Thanks! feminist (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, and for adding the hatnote. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests

Thanks for doing the move requests! I put both of them up for RM (and not RMTR) because I wasn't sure if there would be any discussion on them. Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I saw your subsequent comment at Talk:Mount Macdonald, which is similar to what you said here. When there has been a recent move away from a title and the request is to return the page to the original title, there is an assumption that the request should go through. The burden to initiate a subsequent discussion is on the editor who wants to move the page away from its stable title. That's why I closed the discussions so quickly. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for moving Chattagram to Chittagong P32929 (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this counted as an idea, but thank you! Dekimasuよ! 11:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move: alternative approach

Not sure on how this needs to be organised, but perhaps take a look nonetheless: see here KVDP (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KVDP. This can be proposed as part of a new multimove request, as described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. If it becomes necessary during the discussion, I can clarify that my close at Talk:Genetic engineering in the United States did not preclude initiating this kind of new discussion. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. Did the request. KVDP (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Just as an FYI, you don't need to move technical requests to the contested area. If you think it will be controversial, you can just start the discussion unilaterally by hitting the discuss button. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you can probably tell, that's not the part of the page I normally have on my watch list, but I've had particular reasons to notice changes there today. I should pay more attention to how things come to be shifted to the current discussions section under the current tech setup. Dekimasuよ! 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Always good to see more admins working in moves. I've been pulled in a lot of different directions of late, but it honestly is one of the more enjoyable project space areas, IMO. Thanks for all your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Font size and accessbility

Hi, hope you don't mind a question about this edit [2], removing the 90% font size from horse racing results. What is the issue with accesibility with the reduced font size? I have edited a few horse race articles today and made the same change, taking out the 90% - am happy to carry on doing that as each article comes up for its 2018 update but I'm interested in what the actual problem is. All the best. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bcp67, and thank you very much for this question. In this case I was having my own trouble with the legibility of the page, but I should have looked further into the circumstances before going ahead and altering the text. At Investec Derby Trial the amount of small text on the page as a whole, including in running text, had already stuck out to me. But I shouldn't necessarily have concentrated on the results section alone. You're probably aware of MOS:FONTSIZE, which deprecates changing the font sizes manually in things like the distance listed in the lede. That might also be applied to the information in the "Records" section and to the external links that are currently at the end of the "References" section, I think. However, what actually caused me to make the change was how the reduced size in the results box caused the frames surrounding the entries to show up in black rather than gray on my screen. This made it quite hard to read the titles of the entries that weren't blue links. I just re-checked this on another device and had the same issue with the old version. Looking back at the edit now, I believe it could have been fixed just as well by altering the cellpadding="0" to a different number to create a gap between the edge of the box and the beginning of the text. If no one else has complained about the 90% font size, starting with a higher cellpadding value might be a reasonable solution for this issue. Thanks again for raising the question. Best, Dekimasuよ! 00:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the quick reply. I actually wasn't aware of the FONTSIZE guideline and having looked at it, I'll stop doing that for the race distances. I'll be updating another race article at some point today, if I try the cellpadding idea would you mind taking a look afterwards and seeing if it makes any difference? I only use a laptop so I'm not aware of the impact when viewed on other devices. Thanks again. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcp67, sorry to take so long to get back to you. If there is an example you'd like me to take a look at, just let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! I took the cellpadding=0 out of Prix Ganay, would you be able to look at that and see how it appears? Thank you. --Bcp67 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does look better to me than the older versions in the page history. I also tried previewing the page using cellpadding=2, and that looked even better, but I'm sure I wouldn't have edited the page for a lack of legibility if I'd first come across the current version. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move "Etudes phenomenologiques"

1. Why did you reject the move since the new journal has a new title and needs to have the English part as a bi-lingual journal. The founding editor of the old journal (Jacques Taminiaux) is still the founding editor of the new one. The Secretary of the old journal (Danielle Lories) is a co-editor of the new one. 2. Do you suggest I create a new entry with the new name of the journal?Gerard Ghislain (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerard Ghislain, I did not reject this move request. At the time you requested the move to "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies," the page was already at this title because it had been moved by an editor on May 3. You can see this at Talk:Études phénoménologiques#Requested move 4 May 2018, where I noted that the requested name was already the title of the article. In fact, your request reads "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies → Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies." However, after I performed the procedural close of the move request, another editor moved the page back to the original title. Because that took place, it would make sense to initiate a new move request to "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies" at this time if you still think one is warranted. I think that would be a good next step instead of making a new entry with the name of the new journal, because it will allow us to gauge the opinions of a variety of editors. Dekimasuよ! 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk page clutter

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For closing the particularly difficult case of Requested mass move of TV specials Ribbet32 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors will be disappointed by the result, but thank you for the thought! Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA moves

Hello! Thanks for moving the MBTA pages! However, I'm wondering why you moved Watertown Yard (MBTA station) to Watertown Yard (MBTA) instead of just Watertown Yard. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daybeers. I moved all the pages as they were listed in the request at Talk:Lechmere station, including this one, which was listed as "Watertown Yard (MBTA station) → Watertown Yard (MBTA)." I don't think I could have made it all the way through if I thought much more about each individual move. If Watertown Yard is unambiguous, I doubt anyone will object if you move it again. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. It was changed in the template after the move was proposed, but not changed below in the main section of the move, showing each page name. Thanks very much again for moving all the pages! –Daybeers (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Tusita

Please can you review again for me how you concluded that this discussion had no majority consensus, so I can understand the process better.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will get back to you on this as soon as possible. Dekimasuよ! 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. As you know, in this case there was evidence presented both in favor of and against the proposed move to Tusita. As you noted in your first comment in the section, arguments like "in real life" based on anecdotal evidence have little weight in move discussions. However, the subsequent evidence presented both by you and JarrahTree indicated that sources differ on the proper spelling of the term. JarrahTree presented evidence from several sources (not all reliable, but including Britannica) of the use of "Tushita," while all examples of "Tusita" listed were foreign language documents that have no bearing upon the English usage that is the basis for article naming. Meanwhile, your evidence showed that Google Scholar and Google News differed as far as which spelling was more common; while you argued that scholarly usage would be more appropriate, our underlying goal is to put the article where people will search for it, which indicates that usage outside scholarly sources is also relevant. With usage split, the editor who first proposed the change, Wikiman5676, wrote "I agree as long as cultural tendencies are identified it doesn't matter how you spell it."

Therefore, when I first considered closing the move request on May 3, I chose to relist the discussion to see if new arguments would be presented. Relisting was an indication that I did not see a consensus for or against the move at the time. Since no new comments were added to the discussion through May 9, it appeared to me that the discussion was stale and I closed it in line with my previous evaluation of the situation. I believe that this is appropriate in the spirit of WP:TITLECHANGES, which states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." This is not to discount the arguments made in favor of the move. Rather, the discussion left it unclear that there would be a significant benefit to moving the page in terms of the new title's compliance with policy (WP:AT), and it was not clear that the editors involved reached an agreement to alter the title. I would be willing to reopen the discussion to see if other editors choose to participate, but I think that is unlikely given that it attracted no new comments in the last ten days it was open. If you are still interested in moving the article, I might advise instead opening a new request in a few months with further evidence and a discussion of why the new title would be more appropriate according to the naming criteria. Please let me know if this doesn't resolve your concerns. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and thorough response, Dekimasu!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler unsalted

Please know that Kelly Sadler is NOT salted. Sandstein salted it but unsalted it today. Sandstein originally salted it because the draft on Kelly Sadler was crap. However, there is no need for a draft because Kelly Riddell is an established article with lots of citations and written better. Cowding Soup (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]