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.

Akutagawa/Naoki dates

Thanks for your edit summary comment on Naoki dates in the Miyuki Miyabe article. Clarifying conferral date vs. award time frame is important. Following your lead I'll start using conferral date for the awards list and text, but also indicate the award time frame (e.g. 2003下) in the awards list. That should help clarify for readers why source articles say one year while the official list of winners sometimes indicates another. I've gone back through articles I've created or updated and made similar edits to keep things consistent. Good catch, thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka, thanks for following up on this. I appreciate how much work it must be to standardize the dates–even academic sources tend to get them incorrect. Thanks for all the great work you've been doing on the literature articles. Dekimasuよ! 00:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bill Potts

Hi - on the Bill Potts close, would you mind a little more meat on the bones of your rationale and maybe weigh the strength of the arguments? Seems to me like the !opposes were largely based on a faulty premise - that articles on fictional characters have to meet a higher standard to be primarytopic. I and a few other editors noted that that is not the case in any WP policy, guideline, or essay. I'd appreciate a second look. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added the following: "Although it is possible for a fictional character to be a primary topic for a search term, there is no consensus in this discussion that the Doctor Who character fulfills the long-term significance criterion of Wikipedia:Primary topic." It is difficult to add more than this–there is no requirement that fictional characters must meet a particular standard to be the primary topic, but at the same time, individual editors may have different perspectives on what is required in order to fulfill the long-term significance criterion, and discussions about adding explicit ways to measure long-term significance have not achieved consensus at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I do not think the standard should be different for fictional characters, but there was still no apparent consensus as to long-term significance in the discussion at Talk:Bill Potts. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional response. I would also quibble that the guideline does not state that there has to be long-term significance in order to have a primarytopic. Where we have such a strong primarytopic by usage, it seems reader-unfriendly to force them to a dab page. But c'est la vie. Dohn joe (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisting move request

Hi, I would like to come back to you because you closed my move request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_and_Information_Space_Command_(Germany) I attached a new official source to the article with the official naming of the command. Please look into it and relist my move request. Schariez (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Schariez. Since this was a request from two months ago, I have reformatted your comment at Talk:Cyber and Information Space Command (Germany) as a new move request rather than a relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. It took some time to get an official article in English online. Schariez (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RM close

Thanks for your contributions. However, regarding Talk:List of Persian Roman Catholic saints would you mind giving it a relist, since it is actually 2-2 stakes? WP:CONSISTENCY for article realm should perhaps merit at least one relist, shouldn't it? Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, I have relisted the proposal per your request, but the count wasn't a major factor here. If you'd like the request to have a better chance to go through, it would be worthwhile to respond to the concerns of the other editors. As an aside, while it appears that there were particular concerns regarding removing "Roman" here, that doesn't usually seem to be the case in these requests. Is there a reason you tend to introduce the move proposals separately instead of as a group? Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I don't think there is lot of articles around that apply that formula. If you know more, feel free. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Luccombe, Isle of Wight

Wouldn't that have benefited from a relist. Even if "Luccombe" was the most common name then WP:NATURAL could apply, but I think the OS is a more appropriate source than Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Crouch, Swale, I will respond to this as soon as possible. Dekimasuよ! 19:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have relisted this per your request because I haven't had time to discuss the close in any detail. However, there are a few caveats that apply here and I hope they can be addressed in future move requests. First, the proposal is phrased in terms of favoring an WP:OFFICIAL name. Perhaps there is an argument to be made about the official name, but the OS name has little bearing on whether or not a disambiguation page is necessary, because it has already been demonstrated that Luccombe, Isle of Wight is at least sometimes called "Luccombe". Whether or not the disambiguation page is necessary or any of the pages should be moved hinges upon whether the names are in general, not official, use–and there hasn't been any evidence presented to show either that "Luccombe" usually refers to the place in Somerset or that the location on the Isle of Wight is usually called "Luccombe Village". The question is not whether to favor Google Maps over OS, but what a preponderance of sources show. Dekimasuよ! 17:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I have replied there. My point was that I had replied to the "oppose" argument and no other comments had been made. Likewise I'd point out that if a RM debate has had no comments then it might be OK to close it as moved. As pointed out at WP:RMCI#Determining consensus unless the move is dubious or controversial its often enough that no one opposed to it, for example Maldon, Essex but I trust you're judgement on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, as you noted, there's no minimum level of participation for move discussions. Whether or not I relist a move discussion that has no responses usually has to do mainly with the complexity of the issues raised by the request (including whether the nomination references relevant policies and guidelines), whether it is likely to have been read by any editors with sufficient competency in the subject area (that is, unopposed requests on pages with greater exposure are more likely to be uncontroversial), and whether the issue has been discussed in the past. Where I've not closed your recent move proposals, usually it is the second of these that gives me enough pause to relist the discussion. However, it's also the case that clear evidence of the WP:COMMONNAME in rationales would usually be enough to put these through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my judgment; I try to deal with these in a reasonable fashion, despite the backlog. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A Baker Barnstar

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For piloting to a solution for the James Addison Baker articles. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Change of article name from Casma/Sechin culture to Sechin Complex

Today you changed the title of the Casma/Sechin culture article to Sechin Complex.

Apparently you requested the move on August 17, but my watchlist does not indicate any changes in the Casma/Sechin article on that day or any proposal to move the article. Had I known of the proposed move, I would certainly have commented, and probably opposed the move.

My problem is that the title Sechin Complex is not inclusive enough to describe the topic. The several archaeological remains of the culture are found not only in the Sechin River valley, but also in the Casma River Valley. The title Sechin Complex might be interpreted to exclude the ruins in the Casma Valley. The title Casma/Sechin culture makes clear that all these ruins were similar in culture, existed contemporaneously, and were possibly politically united for part of their 2,000 year history.

Yes, the name Sechin Complex is often used to describe this grouping of ancient settlements. However, as several of the ruins already bear the Sechin name (Sechin Alto, Sechin Bajo, and Cerro Sechin), I also thought it would be better if the article bore a more encompassing and less confusing name than Sechin Complex.

There is also precedent. The culture found about 100 miles distant is described in the article titled Norte Chico civilization. One reason that title was chosen was that it is more inclusive than other possible titles such as Caral and Caral-Supe civilizations.

I'm not going to wrestle you down to the mat on this issue, but I am irritated that the watchlist system failed to notify me of the proposed change.Smallchief (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smallchief, please note that I did not request the move, but only followed through on the unopposed request. Perhaps you would receive better feedback from Koavf, who filed the proposal. It should have shown up on your watchlist, however, according to the page history. In this particular case, I will revert the change and relist the discussion to give you the opportunity to respond at Talk:Casma/Sechin culture. Perhaps there is some way both to satisfy MOS:SLASH and to address your concerns. Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to attribute the change of name to you. To put it mildly I'm not technically savvy. Smallchief (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Zakarid Armenia

Hello, because you were the closer of the move request on Talk:Zakarid Armenia, I would like for you to reconsider the result in order to avoid the lengthy WP:MR process. I had established that Zakarid Armenia is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. Considering that "the debate is not a vote" and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", this should've been convincing enough to move the article. And even if you do not believe it is sufficient, please consider the article had been named Zakarid Armenia for years until it was recently moved with no discussion taking place (and articles can't be moved back to a previous name by regular users). So if you still consider there to be no consensus, then reverting the article back to Zakarid Armenia should've still been the correct result. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia

An editor has asked for a Move review of Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. 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. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have replied there. I am sorry that you had to wait so long for a resolution to this. Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving templates

Hi, when you move a template, please check whether there is a "name" parameter within the template. If so, this needs to be updated to match the new page name.

This applies to all stub templates and navigation templates, and probably others too.

I mention it because you did not update the parameter after doing the requested move of Template:RC-society-stub to Template:Catholic-Church-society-stub.

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for all you do here! – Fayenatic London 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Corn, N64 Emulator listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corn, N64 Emulator. Since you had some involvement with the Corn, N64 Emulator redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have replied. Thank you for the notification. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Hi Dekimasu. You protected the page Template:Lookfrom. It was subsequently made a redirect after the template was moved, and thus the original basis for protection, that it is a high-risk template, no longer applies. Could you unprotect the page? It would also facilitate a pending edit request. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is a good idea, since there are still a large number of pages that link to the old title. Because I am unable to be active at the moment, I'd suggest that you ask for review of the issue from another administrator. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fusao Hayashi

Hey, I just noticed this. I don't recall, but was the version of the page you deleted a separate (content fork) article created by me during 2017 Asian Month? The article appears on my list of articles created, but the live version of the page has no edits by me; I suspect what happened is someone created an earlier article at the wrong title without leaving a redirect at the right one, and I accidentally concluded that no article existed and created my own (this is what happened at Talk:Kanikōsen, and I actually recall venting to User:Curly Turkey about inconsistent naming order of modern-but-dead Japanese authors at around that time). If you don't mind, could you restore my version and put it in my user space as User:Hijiri88/Fusao Hayashi so I can overwrite my version (which unlike the present version was almost certainly fully cited) and keep whatever of the existing article is worth keeping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems the page was just a redirect. In future, it might be better if you just moved over the redirect (even non-admins can do that) rather than deleting, since it seems the tool can't tell the difference if someone created a redirect, the redirect was deleted, and then the original article moved to the redirect title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri 88, I don't remember performing the move either, but as you said, the deletion overwrote a single-edit redirect you created to point to the existing article which was at Hayashi Fusao at the time. I probably never saw your redirect, just saw the page at Hayashi Fusao and had it go through without issue when I put Fusao Hayashi in for the new title on the move screen. Thus it appears that what I did is what you requested, moving over the redirect without performing a separate admin action–that just created an automatic G6 notification in the history (deletion by overwriting). Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not remembering, but it seems you actually deleted the redirect first, for whatever reason. I don't see any standard procedural issue in you doing this, as the end result is the same, but it messes with some of the automatic analysis tools, as my "articles created" now includes that article, since the tool recognizes that I created the first page at that title, and can't see that the "deleted" version that was "restored" is now and always was a redirect. (The list is not supposed to include redirects, and didn't apparently until the page was deleted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I can verify that I did not perform an additional admin deletion of the page. I just created User:Dekimasu/test1 as a redirect to User:Dekimasu/test2, created User:Dekimasu/test2 with dummy text, and then moved User:Dekimasu/test2 to User:Dekimasu/test1 over the redirect as a normal move without performing an admin action, and it still shows a G6 deletion in the log. Whether it only does this because I am also an admin, I can't say. However, I am sure that I did not perform the deletion separately. Dekimasuよ! 08:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's super-weird. Then again, the tools are weird -- apparently EditorInteract will randomly not list certain pages unless you change the namespace or date parameters. Anyway, sorry for bothering you about a non-issue, and thanks for clearing that up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem/voting illegally!

@Dekimasu: The hospital article Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital had the sockpuppet User:Frayae illegally rejected the move of Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. So the article should be moved to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. I greatly support this move since it makes sense to move Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to the new name Adventist Health Howard Memorial.Catfurball (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest submitting a new request, given that the previous discussion occurred several months ago. You may be technically correct as far as the sockpuppetry involved, but a new request should be just as successful and have a stronger mandate. Or perhaps another uninvolved admin would be willing to act on this right away; feel free to ask. Dekimasuよ! 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reopen move discussion?

Hi!

I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at Genesis flood narrative you closed as "no consensus"? [1] I would argue that there needs to be more time and perhaps more attention brought to the discussion as there are outstanding questions that are unanswered by some of the participants and the quality of the arguments is rather uneven up until now.

I would be curious if you had any ideas of how to more widely advertise this discussion to get more input if you do find occasion to reverse your close.

Thanks.

jps (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ජපස, from my reading it does not seem likely that the discussion will reach a consensus in favor of a move, so the simplest conclusion was to proceed with a close. I recognize that this would be a disappointing outcome, but you may find it helpful to your cause to disengage a bit; to the extent that discussion is still ongoing, it appears to involve those who chose to respond to your objections to their opposes. I do agree that some of the arguments presented are stronger than others. I have relisted the discussion per your request and we'll see what happens. Dekimasuよ! 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take your advice and disengage. jps (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, it seems indecently brief for you to have closed this move discussion within 15 hours of the first response, and with the !votes at 2-2. Please explain how you consider the requirements of WP:NOTMOVED section 2 in such a short (in both the temporal and extension senses) discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The move request was open for the requisite seven days; note that there is no minimum level of participation for the processing of move requests. In this case, per WP:NOTMOVED, "there is neither a strong consensus to move nor a strong consensus to keep the current title." As far as the policy on article titles is concerned, in this particular discussion the nomination made reference to one of the naming criteria, concision, while those opposed to it made reference to another criterion, consistency. Thus there was "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions [which] normally means that no change happens" (WP:RMCI#Determining consensus). (The tally of participants is not particularly relevant.) I am only making reference to WP:RMCI because you asked about it specifically; this was a normal result under the broader WP:CON policy and I made the determination–always a judgment call–that the discussion was unlikely to reach consensus, because the arguments based on the naming criteria are not going to be resolved by further discussion. Leaving such a discussion open longer is counterproductive if it draws editorial resources away from improving the encyclopedia in other areas. If necessary, it might be possible to make a new move request for all pages that might be affected by this sort of change, since this would resolve the objection of User:Fyunck(click). I assume that there are a large number beyond what User:Fyunck(click) cited. Please proceed with that if you'd like, or pursue a naming convention regarding lists. Note that the current titles are probably in line with the existing naming convention at WP:LISTNAME.

As far as "similarly" is concerned, for better or for worse it currently appears that the original close was a suitable analysis of the discussion at Talk:Genesis flood narrative. In closing a large number of move discussions there will always be editors who have objections to the results. The existence of an objection to one close is not necessarily an indication that the issues involved are commensurable or indicative of a systematic error in the process followed by the closer. Dekimasuよ! 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but you seem to have ignored the first of those principles, Precision: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" The scope of the article is well beyond a list of champions. Surely the most important job of an article title is to identify the subject of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that I linked WP:LISTNAME, which reads in part, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." The precision criterion is generally focused upon distinguishing the contents of the article from the contents of other extant articles, and that wasn't at issue here. In either event precision wasn't brought up in the request; likewise editors opposed to the move might hypothetically have brought up naturalness or recognizability, but didn't. The role of the closer is to evaluate the existing discussion, not override it, and there was no consensus in this case. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi Dekimasu

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

1.129.104.218 has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. 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. Hhkohh (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the notification. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rationale request

Hi Dekimasu, can we have your more detailed reasoning (policy considerations, etc.) behind the closure on Talk:2018 Leicester helicopter crash#Requested move 6 December 2018 please. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This did not really come into my close, but it may be worth noting that the current title is a descriptive title based upon naming conventions, and when an article is named descriptively the prevalence of the title (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) is not the primary concern. Although you provided an argument that usage has changed since the November discussion, editors who participated in the current request do not seem to have found that evidence sufficiently convincing. As far as whether the year is to be included in the title, WP:NCE notes that inclusion of the year "is a judgment call" to be decided upon through discussion. I apologize if this sounds curt, but Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and the consensus of editors who participated in the discussion was fairly clear in this case–that the current title with the year included remains preferable at this time. Dekimasuよ! 06:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia:Consensus then because from its "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I assumed that statements of support or oppose based on personal opinion rather than supported by Wiki policy would be disregarded. And WP:CONLEVEL (part of the consensus policy) is explicit that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." It also says "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names.... So I would have thought from that, that WP:COMMONNAME policy should trump a Wikiproject naming convention, rather than vice-versa. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCE is a standard Wikipedia-wide naming convention that complements WP:AT, not a WikiProject naming convention. As above, WP:NDESC is policy on the same level as WP:COMMONNAME–it's even on the same policy page. When consensus favors a descriptive title, WP:NCE is the convention that determines how the title will be formed. The convention is not in conflict with policy. Note that WP:NCE makes specific provision for cases in which there is no clear common name, which is what editors argued is true here. They disagreed with your assertion that the common name is clear, and no actual evidence of the existence of a common name was presented over the course of the discussion.

Further, all move discussions are "localized" interpretations of community policies and guidelines. Local consensus doesn't override community consensus, but a requested move listing is designed to represent sufficient project-wide advertisement that it receives attention from a broad cross-section of editors in order to avoid concerns that the results of the request are simply products of local consensus. To state that community consensus has already been determined by policy in relation to any individual move request is basically to argue that we don't need move discussions. The applicability of a range of specific guidance is what is under discussion in a move request. Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation, but I didn't see anyone mention WP:NCE in the discussion, though one person argued that as it complies with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force it shouldn't be changed. Interestingly though, WP:NCE states for aviation incidents that "Article titles should not contain the year of the incident unless needed for disambiguation." -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point that was likewise not brought up over the course of the discussion. It would be worth mentioning in a future move request, although the reasoning is probably that most articles on aviation incidents already include other quite specific identifying information (the convention also recommends including the air carrier and flight number), which is not applicable here. The convention also recommends not using the word "crash," in contrast to the WikiProject's attempt at standardization. All in all I think that subsection of WP:NCE is not taking helicopter incidents into account, but that's not something to settle via conversation on my talk page.

To summarize, you are correct that consensus is ascertained by the quality of arguments. However, you would be hard pressed to find any closer who would interpret the discussion at hand as a consensus to move the page to the title you suggested at this time. The editors who participated in the move discussion did so in good faith. They (a) were not convinced that the quality of your argument was unassailable, and/or (b) did not believe a suitable amount of time had passed, either for the purposes of establishing the suitability of the proposed title or simply since the conclusion of the previous discussion. In practice, while we deprecate (!)voting, to some extent participants' analysis of the discussion often serves as a proxy for analysis of the quality of arguments. I am sorry that you are disappointed by the outcome of the request. I would suggest returning to the matter after several months have passed, if necessary. In the future, WP:NDESC/WP:COMMONNAME point aside, it would be best to support a claim about the common name with evidence of the relative prevalence of the suggested title. That tends to convince both participants and closers. Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your further comments and insight. I'll leave it at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification–I will think about this. Dekimasuよ! 16:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Hhkohh! Happy holidays. Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see query

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Anthony, I have replied there. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia

Hello, Dekimasu. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.177
13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year. The new article has already been created, but I added a few things to it to bring it closer to the structure of the 2018 article. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Radeon

Just in case I've updated the main article for AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Radeon Software Crimson Edition" (Formerly Catalyst) after the requested move. Maybe the weird overlong section title should be also fixed, e.g., drop the Crimson Edition detail, but keep proprietary + formerly Catalyst as is. –84.46.53.87 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it would be fine to be bold and see if your edits stick in this case. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Sakkura in this diff

–84.46.53.83 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Closure of RM

You recently closed a RM at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. I'm wondering if I should merge HP Inc. into Hewlett-Packard then get an admin to do the move or if I should start a merge request. I thought the request I opened was suppose to be a merge and move request at the same time. I started the RM rather then a merge request after a discussion at Talk:HP Inc.. So, what should I do next? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello BrandonXLF, I would advise you to go ahead and follow the procedure at WP:MERGEPROP, although that process isn't as formalized as the one at WP:RM. The main issue with holding a merge and move request together is the one I noted in the close: the result of a move request is supposed to be a closer's assessment of consensus, possibly followed by a simple technical move, whereas merges are involved editing processes. Closing a move discussion is supposed to be done by an uninvolved editor, whereas merges are usually best performed by editors with a strong knowledge of the concerned topics. The best next step would be to verify through continued discussion that there is a consensus in favor of a merge. If there is a consensus to merge there is normally no need to perform a subsequent move request, since the merge can be performed in the direction desired from the start. However, if consensus is clear and you decide to merge away from the title where the article will end up, you can later make a request at WP:RMTR to have the pages moved via technical means that will retain the respective edit histories.

I know that you have been around for quite a while, so please forgive me if this response mainly tells you things you already know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Dear Dekimasu, thank you for listing the "Universität Klagenfurt" discussion! Cambridge51 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you mention me at WP:RM?

Good day! Did you mention me at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jax 0677, you may have received a ping when I reverted an issue with the Wikipedia:Requested moves page last night. There was a small problem unrelated to your request. Please do not worry about the notification. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Moscow Metro RM

Hey. Regarding Talk:Moscow Metro#Requested move 31 December 2018, I just wanted to let you know that you moved the Moscow Metro page to Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line by accident. It was supposed to be the Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line page that was moved. I've moved the pages to the correct title. Just a friendly reminder to please be careful next time. Thank you. epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, thank you for this. It appears that the move template had been applied incorrectly on the talk page, so when I clicked on the "direct move" link the template did not recognize the proper title change. I did realize that a different page was hosting the move request and as such linked Talk:Moscow Metro when moving the other pages manually (e.g. here), but trusted the system too much when I moved the topline article. I should have noticed the error, however, particularly since I noted that the talk page did not travel across successfully. Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I also realized that the RM request wasn't being hosted on the primary page being moved, so I think that's part of the problem . Thanks for your response. epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Zayn Malik

You recently closed the move discussion of Talk:Zayn Malik. As a matter of fact move discussions are generally closed after at least 7 days. And I do not know how to send a Move Review, so I discarded the close.68.195.141.2 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Zayn Malik. 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. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Move reviews go at Wikipedia:Move review, not on the talk page of the article. In this case, consensus was clear without waiting for seven days. It is not necessary to wait for the full period when it is clear that a proposal will not result in consensus to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sarah Vaughn with Clifford Brown"

You are certainly right that renaming the page "Sarah Vaughn" would conflict with the existing page. Can we rename the page "Sarah Vaughn (album)" to distinguish it from the main entry on the person "Sarah Vaughn"? Dr.skim (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you would like to create a new move request with the proposed title Sarah Vaughan (album), please feel free to do so. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

EPIC Church International name change

Hello Dekimasu, EPIC Church International is an official name change credibility verified by multiple sources locally and on the internet. Thank you. Yours truly, follow of Jesus Christ always. John1427 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

From the love of Jesus, I admit it

John1427 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello John1427, and thank you for the kitten. I have retained the source that you added to the Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center article showing the name change. However, it is preferable to have secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources when possible, and page history needs to be retained when moving pages. If you would like to proposed that the title be changed to EPIC Church International, please use the established process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Also, the other changes to the article were not cited. It is good that you can state that there are sources that help show why these changes should be made, but they must be shown and added to the article directly in order to support the changes. In general, it may be best to discuss the changes you hope to implement rather than trying to make the changes yourself, since it appears you may not be familiar with many Wikipedia processes; thus the reversion of your other move, at John Wagner, which is considered a primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dekimasu, Thank you. I will use the process, however the move is not yet recognized by newspapers. I will remember that in the future. Yours truly,John1427 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dekimasu. You have new messages at Britishfinance's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Move request by IP

Please move my request [2] onto the main Wikipedia page please, thank you. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no such move request and no new proposed article title seen there. Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change closed as refused

Back in May 2018 I requested a simple name change, which you closed as refused. I recently found it had been renamed exactly as requested by a registered editor with no drama.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I closed it in accordance with the substance of the discussion that showed no consensus to change the current setup, not because I particularly wanted to reject your request. Because there was already a past discussion on the topic, it should not have been moved without discussion by the other editor as you noted. It seems that change has since been reverted. If you would like the page to be moved to the title you originally suggested, please consider creating a new move request and supplying the evidence that was requested in the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Many null edits (particularly the content relating to IP Talk/change requests). I think it is disrespectful of Wikipedia and its ongoing processes/members to refuse the official name as obvious for the article title - based on procedural expectations contained in WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:common sense - WP has an obligation to show it correctly on a world-platform, considering GFDL. The initial upload (permalink) was at fault. I have no reason to consider if the team name had changed since 2007, and if it had, WP has an obligation to show it correctly.

Secondary sources were not supplied as being largely irrelevant - they do not determine the team name in any way, but can be keyed-in sloppily, or be copied from WP without acknowledgement due to the internet being unregulated, as you will know, so better to 'get it right'. I had actually looked at third-party sources, generally (and so found the comment "Do your homework first" to be condescending, as a registered username would not have had to supply substantiation). Accordingly I will not being re-submitting. Some website presences do show the name 'wrongly', but the majority are in accordance with the historic team name. A basic google search shows WP to be out of line in the initial results - note there are other (sometimes) unconnected businesses using Tech3 or Tech 3.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The requirement to create a new move discussion in this sort of case would be the same for any editor, IP or otherwise. The idea, for better or for worse, is that the primary source does not determine which name is "right," and that Wikipedia does not take a position on what name is "right" or assume that secondary sources that differ from primary sources are "wrong." Wikipedia's standard as a tertiary source is to follow secondary sources for naming in all cases, not to be a leading indicator. It is fine to cite WP:IAR, which is policy, but since the lack of consensus to move the article was based on WP:AT policy and its explanatory supplement WP:OFFICIAL, if you really think WP:OFFICIAL itself is a violation of common sense, you can always consider initiating a discussion to change the policy.

I was not the editor who wrote "do your homework first," and I'm not sure what the reference to GFDL is intended to show here. However, again, as the closer of the discussion it was not my task to do additional research on the name that editors, including you, did not choose to present during the discussion. See WP:BURDEN or the essay WP:DEMAND. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Aceyoutoo

Today you blocked this user, but I feel like that may be a very heavy-handed response. While they are self-admittedly associated with that company and did make some questionable edits in the past, those seem to have been over 5 years ago. Their main recent activity was contacting Wikipedia via the Help Desk and Teahouse (an acceptable way to engage with Wikipedia rather than directly editing), and at the time, they were given a standard COI message on their talk page. I feel like we can be a bit more diplomatic and offer them an opportunity to WP:DISCLOSE and continue to use methods like community boards and the article talk pages to contact us. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Netoholic, I respect your position and I will take it into account if there is an unblock request. I gave this some thought before going through with the block, but took into account that these are all the edits made by the account since it was registered in 2012: the addition of unsourced information to Ty Warner; repeated unexplained removal of sourced and cited negative information at Ty Warner over a period of years; addition of promotional information to the article currently at Ty; repeated references to "our company," "our name," "our heading," being "the actual company," and "we" which is indicative of a WP:ROLE account, although it is possible that only one person is in charge of the account; and finally, continuing to edit without making a disclosure of employment after two different requests to do so (there was a more specific request after the standard COI message). I recognize that the trips to the teahouse and the talk page are less problematic than the earlier edits, but the account has never been used for any purpose other than the promotion of the company and its owner, which indicates to me that the account is WP:NOTHERE. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

transclusion fix

Thanks for catching and fixing this. But it's kind of a drag because it's nice to have references from a given section all co-located at the end of that section, instead of having one global References. Any way to fix that? --В²C ☎ 01:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi В²C, I think the only way to do so would be through asking Wbm1058 for some additional work, since normally any changes from our end will be overwritten by the bot. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}} is the standard template used on talk pages (as its name suggests). You can have multiple {{Reflist-talk}} templates on the same talk page, as each talk section in which cited references are used and discussed should have a refs. box at the end of that section. Global references should not be used on talk pages. wbm1058 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft

Hi, regarding the recent close, there were three supports (including one as the nominator) and one oppose. This sounds like sufficient consensus to me. Would you be willing to reconsider the close? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello K.e.coffman, I do not think the discussion reached a consensus to move the page to any particular title, since it does not appear that the evidence that a common name has been established in English here is very strong. However, I have reopened the request for someone else to close. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that both the supporters seemed to be relying on WP:UE, which doesn't say what they appear to think it says. It is too often misinterpreted to say that all titles should be translated to English, even if the original-language title is more commonly used in English-language sources or a translated title is not especially commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Move review for 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this could be cleared up quickly. Best, Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Why did you close the requested move at Talk:TVA this soon? There were only four comments, and one of them used a factually incorrect statement in his/her position, and we were still waiting on them to reply. Would you mind relisting it so we can possibly get a clearer consensus on whether or not to move the page? Bneu2013 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bneu2013, the move request was listed for a standard length of time. In this case, it did not appear likely that relisting the request would lead to any consensus in favor of a page move. Because there are no hard-and-fast criteria for determining whether one title is the primary topic, if the page view data is not accepted as sufficient by participants in the discussion, that is usually sufficient ipso facto evidence that there is no primary topic at this time. In this case, it was also pointed out that the page view data does not make it clear whether the number of readers arriving at Tennessee Valley Authority is illustrative of relative use of the acronym. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your closure

Regarding your closure; The are 3 opposes the last two being the copy of Icewhiz's comment. I checked all the sources Icewhiz grounded his argument on. NY times does not say it was an Iranian plot rather it says "The European Union penalized Iran on Tuesday over allegations that the country’s intelligence service orchestrated a series of assassination plots in Europe," and there's no sentence showing NYTimes is supporting the title. The Telegraph article begins with "The Dutch government has accused Iran of..." and again claims and allegations are reported and there's no text saying the assassination plot was made by Iran. Same is true for for the the Reuters saying "Iran has denied any involvement in the alleged plots..." and "as the Netherlands accused Iran of two killings on its soil ...". I think sources were misinterpreted to reach the conclusion that the current title fits and it's not an allegation, while all the sources mentioned by users are cautious and use terms like "alleged", "claimed", "accused" and etc. So, the only argument opposing the proposal was based on a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources. That said, do you really think those opposes have the same weight as the supports? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein, a few points here. First, there was a comment on January 25 that effectively opposed the proposed move despite not including the word "oppose" ("As for the 'alleged' this doesn't look very alleged") and it appears you may not have factored this into your analysis. Second, closes are based upon the discussion at hand. The oppose by Icewhiz was made a full week before I closed the discussion, and you did not raise any of these objections to the comment over that week. I do agree that the summary of those articles was insufficient, and amounts to synthesis of content where it instead claimed that the term "alleged" was no longer used. I will relist the proposal in order for you to make any points you'd like to make on the page there, but in the future please do so during the discussion rather than after it. I believe the close was an accurate reflection of the discussion as it stood. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for relisting. Yes, I had to show my objection before the closure. Note that the January 25 comment used 2011 Iran assassination plot as an argument, while it's actually 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI on SPI

I've actioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmYisroelChai with CheckUser. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for this. Dekimasuよ! 23:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marina and the Diamonds

StraussInTheHouse relisted this discussion about ten minutes before you closed it as no concensus, specifically to avoid that outcome. Would you mind reopening? PC78 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have to say I was originally going to close it as no consensus too but I opted for a relist because a conclusive moved or not moved will make it much easier to point and say "look, there's the consensus, let's speedy close this" whereas no consensus means we'll just have an endless stream of them every month. SITH (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see. It seems like StraussInTheHouse relisted the discussion during the time when I was reading through it to make the close, and I didn't notice it because I was only editing the header and footer. I respect StraussInTheHouse's perspective and optimism, but I feel that "no consensus" was the right close in this case. StraussInTheHouse noted that there was additional discussion over the past few days, but it was precisely the content of that discussion, with dueling points continuing to be made by both sides, that convinced me leaving the discussion open longer would not result in consensus in favor of a move. And again, StraussInTheHouse's relist and comments here make it clear we agree that there is no consensus in the discussion to this point.

There have already been over five full weeks of discussion on this topic since November, and it is important that we not require participants to come back and restate their previous input over and over. Finally, relisting does not necessarily mean that the discussion will remain open for an extended period after the relist note. Let's try this: I would not reopen the discussion in this case, but StraussInTheHouse can undo my close and reopen the discussion if he thinks it's warranted. Dekimasuよ! 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I think your close was justified, as you say, I think your call was a more from a realist perspective and mine was from an optimist perspective, but as I said in my relisting note, it's a big maybe because a lot more input would be needed to conclusively sway consensus. I'd advise the nominator to wait until Love + Fear has been released because it will enable a much stronger case to be made if reliable sources refer to her using the new name. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and a suggestion

Thanks for your edits on Talk:List of Sword Art Online episodes. I didn't know that a move discussion is kept for 7 days. I still have a lot to learn. Pardon me can I make a suggestion? You added an userbox stating that you have made more than 50000 edits. But your contributions number is 41827 at the moment. Please modify it. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Masumrezarock100, thank you for your note. The number of contributions an editor has is no big deal, but in case you were wondering, different tools count edits in different ways. If you click on the link in the userbox it takes you to this edit counter, which says I have 55,723 edits on the left side. Off on the right it says I only have 44,429 edits. The difference is particularly large for me because one of the main things I do is move pages. You can see an explanation for why this might be at Wikipedia:Edit count#What is an edit count? and, in a slightly different vein, I also perform a variety of administrative actions that aren't counted in edits, some of which are counted at User:Dekimasu/Adminstats. In general it's best not to focus on edit counts too much, but I think a box of that sort has been on my user page for a decade now, so I've gotten used to having it there. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, please also read Help:How to move a page and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. Pages need to be moved using the move function, not manually by cut-and-paste. I have repaired the change in the case of List of Sword Art Online episodes, but if you have done this sort of cutting and pasting for other pages, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to be repaired. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have never done cut paste move except for this page. I tried to move the page using page move function but that page already has redirect. So I had to do it.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 10:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, in these cases, please wait for an administrator or a page mover to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anita Hassandani move

Why are you objecting to Anita Hassandani move. That is her name that she uses now. If you type up her name anywhere it will say she uses Anita not Natasha anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.178.72 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I said "I don't object to the move." Dekimasuよ! 18:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

Hi Dekimasu, My page mover rights has been expired. Could you please reassign page mover rights with no expiry. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello ZI Jony, I have readded the page mover permission. Please use it wisely and carefully! Dekimasuよ! 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Is it possible to re-open this discussion. It's only been a week and it is a low traffic page.--Let There Be Sunshine 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Let There Be Sunshine, I don't think it would be very useful to reopen the discussion in this case. The discussion was closer to being "consensus not to move" than "consensus to move", and more time would be unlikely to result in a consensus in favor of moving the page to the proposed title. The participation was probably based not upon page traffic but rather upon the listing at WP:RM, where the request had as much visibility as any other request. Both of those who opposed the move pointed to concerns about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. You mentioned WP:COMMONNAME in the proposal, but did not provide evidence showing that the proposed title was the common name. However, it's of course possible to turn the target from a redlink into a redirect to the current page, and since I didn't close the request as "consensus not to move" it might be possible to raise the issue in a new request in the future with more evidence. Dekimasuよ! 17:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cybele Palace (Madrid) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cybele Palace (Madrid). Since you had some involvement with the Cybele Palace (Madrid) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

IDFC FIRST Bank move discussion should be reopened and relisted

Hi Dekimasu,

I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at IDFC First Bank you closed as "not moved"? The official spelling "IDFC FIRST Bank" is very important since this is how it would appear in Google's Knowledge panel. I am providing you with few reference links so that you can consider reopening/relisting the move request.

IDFC FIRST Bank Official Website See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site Official Twitter Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official YouTube Channel of IDFC FIRST Bank Official Instagram Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official LinkedIn Account of IDFC FIRST Bank See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site

Hope this helps!

Thanks & Regards, namrata.kadam 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello K23.namrata, I was not the closer of this discussion despite arguing that the page should not be moved, so it is not my position to reopen or relist it. Separately I understand your point, but as stated in WP:OFFICIAL and WP:MOS-TM, Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names or official stylizations. Any proposal to change the title needs to be grounded in Wikipedia policies and naming guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME; we prefer secondary sources as well (the final link actually writes "IDFC First Bank" in the text of the article). Titles are not chosen based upon how Google or other outside organizations might employ them. You might consider creating a redirect from the title you prefer to the current title. Dekimasuよ! 14:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu,

As you suggested, I had redirected the IDFC First Bank to IDFC FIRST Bank and it was reviewed by Narutolovehinata5, but today I found that it is again redirected to old one by JJMC89 with a comment "moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move" though we have discussed this move. Could you please let me know what can be done in this scenario? Should i undo the changes made by JJMC89?

Best Regards, namrata.kadam

Vela Trading Technologies now "moved"

Hello Dekimasu, just a quick courtesy note fyi about this page's recent copypaste move (I noticed you objected to this move at Talk:Vela Trading Technologies in 2018). From a technical point of view, it would be far easier to accept the change now instead of reverting the whole mess once again. But of course you could revert the move, if you strongly disagree with the recent changes - I have only cleaned up some tagging and linking afterwards, and have no horse in this race either way :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

An enquiry about my page mover permission.

Hello there Dekimasu, I hope your new year has been well. I'm writing to you about my page mover permission. As according to WP:INDEFRIGHTS: "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.". However, you removed my page-mover right in December. I'm guessing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the reason you removed it was the 7th reason: "The editor has been inactive for 12 months.", as I was blocked indefinitely. However, now I have completed the Standard Offer, that is no longer the case. I am now wondering would it be possible for me to regain my permission. Apologises if I seem demanding, this is not my intention. Thank you. The Duke 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello The Duke of Nonsense, there has been some discussion about whether WP:INDEFRIGHTS applies to page mover permissions in the same way it applies to, say, pending changes reviewer or extended confirmed status; I tend to think that the appearance of impropriety is particularly important under WP:PMRR. But in your case I do not believe that there is any issue with restoring the permission. Dekimasuよ! 22:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The page mover right itself, one of the more powerful added permissions, did not exist at the time of the RfC referenced in WP:INDEFRIGHTS. I tend to think that were the same RfC to be performed today, it would be more likely to emphasize the "case-by-case" aspect of things and less likely to emphasize what comes after "in general". I respect the fact that the community has not decided the point definitively, but I sometimes try to clean up the page mover list based upon the most recent information we have; socks are a particular problem in move discussions. In most cases asking for restoration through another case-by-case review (e.g. showing that socks were not an issue in the use of the page mover right) should work and seems like a useful step. Dekimasuよ! 22:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

From Japanese to English

Request translation: ja:烏丸家 (Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 (Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 (Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 (Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 (Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 (Jirō Suruga), ja:富樫泰家 (Yasuie Togashi), ja:大社駅 (Taisha Station), ja:村田勝志 (Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 (Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 (Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 (Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 (THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 (Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 (Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん (Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:さわかぜ (護衛艦) (JDS Sawakaze), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) (Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 (Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 (Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 (Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 (Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 (Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 (Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 (Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:日本赤十字社医療センター (Japanese Red Cross Medical Center), ja:角田 久美子 (Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 (Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 (Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ (Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 (Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 (Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 (Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 (Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) (Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 (Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 (Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 (Aasa Maika), ja:ミスター高橋 (Mister Takahashi), ja:吉村道明 (Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 (Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 (Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:SAKI (SAKI), ja:MIZUKI (MIZUKI), ja:万喜なつみ (Natsumi Maki), ja:篠原光 (Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) (Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 (Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:源義経 (1991年のテレビドラマ) (Minamoto no Yoshitsune (1991 television drama), ja:とみながまり (Mari Tominaga), ja:堀内博之 (Hiroyuki Horiuchi), ja:永野椎菜 (Shiina Nagano), ja:諏訪道彦 (Michihiko Suwa), ja:阿部ゆたか (Yutaka Abe), ja:渡部陽一 (Yōichi Watanabe), ja:吉岡昌仁 (Masahito Yoshioka), ja:グレッグ・アーウィン (Greg Irwin). Thank you very much, if you can help me. --95.244.236.110 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

RM closure issue

Hello! Since you closed this Move Request of Chowkidar Chor Hai, the two discussion subsections below it; of Merger and Non-neutrality, also appear to look like they are closed. Can you please fix it? I tried; but wasn't able to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have fixed this. My autocorrect has been taking the “t” out of “subst:” lately. Dekimasuよ! 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)