User talk:SnowFire/Archive2

User talk:SnowFire/Archive1 has 2006 - April 2008 talk page entries. (Though 2 DYK notices from that era were kept here as well for vanity.)

DYK

On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth v. Kneeland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Discharge petition, was selected for DYK!

On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Discharge petition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim Swales material

Can I invite you to look at the latest discussion on this, mostly at User talk:Wikiant, to make sure I haven't accidentally misunderstood and misrepresented your position? I am hoping to find a mention of this material to go into minimum wage that is sufficient to lead people to the detail without causing problems. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.30.201 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Hello, SnowFire! Thank you for your correcting the Martin Luther article. Since I had a bit of a dialogue with User:Theology10101, I happened to see what you posted on his talk page. Luther was a monk before he became a church reformer, and he himself did not renounce his vows: his superior Johann von Staupitz released him from them in 1518. It is no big deal, but I thought you'd like to know. BTW, again thanks for your work.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Revolt of the Comuneros DYK

Hi. I've asked for a slight clarification on your DYK hook here - you might want to take a look. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I've now OKed the hook for DYK. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Hey! Good job with the article of the Revolt of the Comuneros. If I can help with anything, just tell me. Regards! Rastrojo (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the drawing of the Battle of Tordesillas is really interesting :) I've removed the flag of the template because at the beginning of the XVI century, the different kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula had its own flag, so we can't put the Cross of Burgundy as flag of Spain.

The picture of Padilla was taken from the Britannica, and it comes from a painting of the XIX century, but I don't know anymore. Regards :) Rastrojo (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About Don Quixote

We don't know where it was written Don Quixote, we do really know that La Mancha is the scenary of most of their adventures (at least in the First Part). Anyway, it seems more appropriate to say that La Mancha is the region where the story takes place. Cervantes lived in Valladolid and Madrid during the first edition.--2deseptiembre (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Una pregunta...

Your spanish is very good (my English is much worse). The page number for which you ask me is 7. --Digigalos (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

More things...

Well... Tierra Comunera is the most important Castilian nationalist party, but its representation and the total percent of the votes in Castile and León is of the 1.1 % and in Castile-La Mancha is like 0.25%, although they celebrate the "Southern Villalar" in Toledo, and it's the most important act related to the comuneros in southern Castile.

And in the things related to the Burgundy cross flag, I disagree about putting it on the template. That's true that the first king that used that flag was Philip I of Castile, but he died two years after being named king. The next king/queen was Ferdinand and Joana, and they still used the flags of their own kingdoms. Ferdinand died in 1516 and Charles was proclaimed the new king, but this act was like a coup d'état, and we shouldn't forgot this fact. For so, I consider that is more important keep the template without flags, because the Burgundy cross flag wasn't implanted in the Iberian kingdoms. Greetings :) Rastrojo (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Villalar

Well, I've found some interesting links in Google and I suppose that this trusts the statement of the name of Villalar de los Comuneros, isn't it? Regards, and your work with the article is awesome :) Congrats! Rastrojo (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland, My Maryland

The song is a call to arms. Where's secession in the wording? (It's a common interpretation, but undeniably an interpretation). By the way, snide remarks in change comments are hard to get rid of. Tedickey (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK: L'Encobert

On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Encobert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Source of Comuneros' map

This is the source: Díaz Medina, Ana (03-2006). «Héroes de Castilla: Los Comuneros». Historia National Geographic (nº 27): 92 a 103. Regards. Rastrojo (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Revolt of the Comuneros

I have spent some time looking at the article, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the supject matter to understand the article. The Origins section needs to set the context of the article. The lede should be a summary of what is in the article already, but that does not seem to be the case. I would have to start by adding the background to the Origins section, which would require me to have to figure out what the background is. Perhaps I can look at it again when I am less tired. But at this point, the article contains way too much content that does not have sufficient context for me to understand. Sorry. As I said, I will look again tomorrow. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for commenting on my editing. Captain Gamma (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

????

this might mean nothing to you but i am Ivy if that rings any bells... if i have the wrong person i am sorry... but if i have the right person or even if the wrong person just wants to talk hit me up on my talk page...

Pagan GRL (talk)

:)

thats kool anyway... lolz it would be to weird if you were who i thought anyway. so... hows life?

Pagan GRL (talk)

Pagan girl?

I'm sorry, but f you're Pagan girl then why are you coming to me? Chubbennaitor 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to be harsh. You could tell me who it is. Chubbennaitor 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

She talks to you and you've just said that she's our friend. I d't want to get you in trouble for being a sockpuppet. I want to know who he is, f she isn't you. Chubbennaitor 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know Icy. She said she was Ivy. I saw a misspelling and ten went and asked IceUnshattered. Don't suddenly hate me. I don't want to 'hurt' you. Chubbennaitor 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link

You are right, I shouldn't remove something from a dead link. However, I checked on the wayback machine, and the article was not about what it was sourcing. Rockyobody (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint-Exupéry

A very interesting userpage content you have. Btw, ... Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures — in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together (Wind, Sand and Stars) Galoubet (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category sort of court cases

In response to your question, the reason I sort them that way is because in casebook indices and other legal literature, that's the way the cases are listed. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 13:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1953 coup

[ copied from 1953 coup talk page] What do we do when after months of arguing there is no consensus, when very significant issues (cold war fears, domestic dissatisfation with the regime) are censored from the article, and when readers are not even warned of the dispute because POV tags are deleted? Should we go to mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See what you think of this rewriting of the lede. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added to your 1953 Iranian coup/Communism sources --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you time to return to 1953 Iranian coup? The RossF18 editor is still waiting for the page to unlock. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Come back! We need you! :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to move on to dispute resolution in the 1953 coup article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm not sure if you need feel obliged to wade through the masses of text on the talk page to have a say in the dispute. Do however tell us on the talk page whether you want to do mediation --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1953 Coup article Update

Here Kurdo says its "too early to mediate" and Skywriter says he sees "nothing to mediate." I will be gone next week. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you an e-mail address, there is something I need to speak to you about. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Ocean 3

you misunderstand, please return to star ocean 3 article discussion so that you can know what i mean.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port

Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

HHTML

Thanks, I was running with ignore comments for nearly all the time, but there was a problem with comments embedded in templates. Whether this is one of the few edits I made after that before I decided to ignore comments again I can't say immediately. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

DYK for Revolt of the Barretinas

On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Barretinas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1953 Iranian coup

Asking for help. I thought the article was making some progress on non-controversial areas but it was only because Kurdo777 had taken a break. Do you have any recommendations? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive2

Hi — you were one of the few editors gracious enough to comment on the Overman Committee article's first FA candidacy, and the only editor on the whole 'pedia nice enough to support. I thanked you there, but let me thank you again, because you were the only editor to vote at all on the nomination. Because of that, the nomination did not pass (even though there were no opposes...). I have since renominated it. I was wondering if you would be kind of enough to review the article again, if you have time, so that this time, hopefully, it will not be failed simply for a lack of input. I would appreciate it hugely. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comuneros

The phrase is not logical. It says that king arrived with Flemish escort and these factors led to revolt. It sounds like Castilians were xenophobes, but this is discussed in any book on the subject that this had nothing to do with xenophobia. And phrase like this can disturb reader. I don't understand why you prefer non-referenced end illogical phrase over more detailed and referenced one. Maybe if you don’t like that it is discussed two times in the article you should delete the later phrase. --Ceckauskas Dominykas 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese names

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Guangzhou_Baiyun_aircraft_collision&diff=prev&oldid=312051807

Chinese names have the family name first, so Jiang Xiaofeng would be addressed as Jiang. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Can you tell me the article in question please. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

OK got it, for some reason the link didn't work the first time. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

On Revolt of the Brotherhoods

Greetings, glad to see someone else tracking on the topic. I hadn't set out to do so, but have been mining other-language wikis for subjects with little/no coverage on en.wiki, and chanced across ca.wiki's stash of Brotherhood materials, figured I'd create a parallel cat. I mentioned in WikiProject: Spain that the battle articles I've translated are the short ones, and in all honesty that was just to start populating the category to at least get the ball rolling. I wouldn't be adverse to their later being merged; that said there are several far-longer and more-WP Brotherhood battle articles on ca.wiki, I just happen to be focused on general expansion/inter-wiki more than specific labour-intensive articles at the moment. So far as Brotherhood of Mallorca, I would prefer to leave it a separate article, largely so that I can make sure it ties into the Majorca category-tree. I may soon mine ca.wiki to build a "History of Majorca" category, and that'll be a start. At some point as well I need to keep mining ca.wiki for Catalan paramilitary groups, and history of Iberian anarchism, both topics where ca.wiki has far more coverage than en.wiki.

What other topics are you translating over from the other languages? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in Catalan, but I was previously near-fluent in Spanish and Portuguese, so I have very little trouble reading Catalan. Plus gTranslate for all three of those languages has gotten awfully good, so to save time I've been running them through gTranslate and then cross-checking to sort out the hinky bits. There's a Gallego app on gTranslate now, though unfortunately not one for Asturian, which I can't read as well as any of the aforementioned. Do you translate from scratch, with gTranslate, or what point on the spectrum?

My personal interests for Iberia lean more towards, say, 1850 and later (labour issues, syndicalism, etc), but I happened to come across the earlier stuff first, so chipping away at that. I'd love to go dig into fa.wiki more, but my Persian isn't very strong, so about all I've done is category inter-wiki'ing for structural reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

This is a nice touch. Good work. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comuneros and Republican flag

Answer in Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros#Republican flag. --Error (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup

A proposal for a new lead has been posted in Iranian 1953 coup talk page. I suspect that some regular editors on that page will oppose using it and am planning to request comments WP:RfC in that case. If that is no help I plan to request mediation or arbitration --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Manchukuo

Hello. I am sorry that you have come to think of me as someone you would "not want to [but implicitly do] accuse of editing in bad faith". I really would appreciate it if you did more research into the history of such discussions and the like. For example, the page on Manchukuo was deleted not only because the movement was dubious, though I'm sure that a majority of the people advocating deletion thought that, not in the least because at least one username seemed to imply the user being Chinese. Rather, also because there was little known about the group other than their own website, which in any case is not a source to be writing a whole article using. That's the reason I will not try to revive the article. Manchukuo is not much of a passion for my. However, as I stated on the talk page you apparently didn't read, and got support from at least two users on it, especially in absense of any media coverage on China that isn't spoonfed by the government of China, the webpage itself, with a flag, official languages, a constitution, elected officials, passports (as hilarious as that is, as they are utterly useless), government bonds and so on, that is enough to call it an independence movement. Notably, the list also includes Cascadia, Bavaria, every now and then Orkney/Shetland, Istria, the so-called "Black Belt" (as if an independent state could actually be fashioned out of that), and so on. There are plenty of utterly ridiculous things, that make Manchukuo, which at least has historical validity, a clearly articulated idea of what the state should be, and an identity (all three of which some on the list I noted above lack) seem remotely logical. In democratic states, these take the form of fringe political parties. In China, they take the form of fringe websites and underground fringe groups. With regards to the list, I firmly believe it belongs there, for that reason. I do hope this gives you some sort of understanding on my position, so that I may not be accused of editing in bad faith or vandalizing or anything of the like. --Yalens (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

On Manchurian Royalists

Honestly, whatever interpretation of "bad faith" we have (indeed, I am even more hurt by your version of the word), I really do fail to see why it was necessary for you to post that if you actually "authentically doubted it". --Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That aside, why do I think it belongs here? Yes, I agree, chances are, the movement leads nowhere. I have two responses to that. --Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1) There are plenty of movements on that page that are absolutely ridiculous. We have Cascadia, we have that whole lot of separatist movements in Canada and the US. Additionally we have the "Dixie" and "Black Belt" movements in the US which while they have a considerable following, are also absolutely incapable of any real independence (not to mention the Lakotah Sioux who proclaim an independent state that is surrounded on all sides by the US, quite reminiscent of Tatarstan's failed attempt). We have Bavaria in Germany, we have Istria in Croatia, we have a movement for an independent St. Petersburg in Russia (though one could argue that this could be taken much, much, much more seriously than those above as at least they have the capacity for an independent state). I could go on with citing nearly half the entries on that page's list.--Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As for "Manchukuo" where does it fit in? Real chances at independence are slim: the Manchu are outnumbered everywhere, the vast majority, I assume (though I could be wrong, who really knows anything with China's media jamming, a point I will get to later); most speak only Mandarin or at least not Manchu (this is even underlined by the fact that while our site is available in Chinese, English, Japanese, and they have an upcoming Mongolian version apparently, Manchu is nowhere to be seen, though they do have some Constitution documents in probably highly incorrect Manchu nonetheless). To add to that, official China associates a stigma against anything separatist as being somehow linked to its enemies in World War II and this is especially the case for the Manchu, meaning any attempt at independence will get itself a "Nazi/fascist" label. --Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the motives of the writers of the site, I don't think I even have to state those. Manchukuo existed less than a century ago, and its not surprising, especially considering China's lack of democracy coupled with its majority dominance and stigmatization of any legitimate national expression as separatist and evil, that many members of minorities, and perhaps even many Han as well, feel a strong sense of alienation from official China. There will always be those who look for someway out of the current situation (even if the current situation is quite tolerable, as we observe with certain movements in the US and Canada), everywhere and at all times, and when perhaps less than 100 years ago you had an existent state, such that there are people who still remember its existence, its easy to imagine a sense of nostalgia, no matter how awful the original state was originally. Many Russians and Ukrainians are nostalgic for the Soviet Union, when there wasn't so much uncertainty, for example. Manchukuo was not only disfunctional, it was also a puppet. But does that end the nostalgia? Not really. On top of that, we have good old nationalism, and there are nationalists to be found everywhere in a modernizing society like China. It is also important to note that the state the site proposes reviving is not an ethnic state. Indeed there flag has five colors, one for Manchu (the largest), but also represented in the flag are Koreans, Chinese, Mongols and even Japanese (though the motives for the last are obviously not having anything to do with the multiethnic nature of the state). I wouldn't be surprised if a large majority of the people involved with this site are in fact Han (i.e. Chinese, not Manchu, or at least mixed between the two). Whether some of the members of this "thing" are actually royally blooded, I think it is doubtful. But if they are, that gives them a whole list of other motives that I shouldn't need to elaborate on. When it comes to nationalism, often the best line, I think, rather than "why" is "why not".--Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Manchukuo will probably never exist again. But, neither will half the other things on that list anyways. And, hey, it could become reality if some absurd twist in history occurs. Taiwan did, by a complete historical accident. Actual chances of course are little, but that is the case with most of that list anyways, not to mention that things like Cascadia or Istria are even more marginal and absurd. At least Manchukuo has historical context. --Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Even if we have no news sources, as I hinted at before, this is not a legitimate argument. The Republic of Lakotah is almost never reported by any news, for who-knows-what-reasons (though I can guess and say that our media has a certain dislike of it). Now, the US doesn't jam news to nearly the same extent as China does. Tibet we get news about. What is Xinjiang to the Chinese, but Uighuristan with areas of Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia added on from the perspective of the Uighurs, is reported. Inner Mongolia is never reported, but like the two above, nationalism is described as widespread. I don't think its newly Chinese demographic is an argument against it; territorial boundaries set by the Chinese government are scoffed at by others, not to mention that there are plenty of modern states that, when they first initiated their nationalist movements, it was run in the interest of a minority of hte population; modern Abkhazia is an example of a separatist state where only less than a fifth of the population at the time was the ethnicity the new state was to represent, and yet it broke free (with Russian assistance) from an anocratic Georgia. Considering that Mongolia itself broke off of China with foreign assistance, it would be unwise to assume this isn't a consideration for the movement if China does not quickly concede linguistic and cultural rights and end the dominance of Han Chinese culture (which is unthinkable for China's current rulers). I could go on. As JSorens noted, lack of media coverage regarding separatist movements in Indonesia cannot be used as an argument for their exclusion noting information jamming policies. For some reason, many users who note this about Indonesia, him included, will not apply it to China, despite China's even harsher media jamming, but this is a double standard largely related to that people often know more about China and are under the correct impression that the Manchu are almost identical to the Han Chinese, and misled to think of the movement as an ethnic movement, not to mention that similarity in culture is never really a barrier to nationalism in the first place (see Yugoslavia). In my opinion, that we recieve no news of Manchukuo's movement is no proof of its inexistence, especially considering that the site has already a Constitution, a flag, official languages, and so on. I don't think a hoax would have so much work put into it, and a Constitution... it's absurd yes. But it's also serious, I believe.--Yalens (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the original research rules for Wiki. What I don't think you're understanding is:

1) Original Research is, in many cases, a bad name. Technically, it isn't exactly original research as there is the site right there advocating it. This standard is applied not only to Manchukuo, but to half the movements on the page. A considerable portion of the movements there are without links, those which have links often link to things virtually equivalent to the site. 2) While there is OR, there is also consistency. The standard I have noted, which has been applied to Burma, to Indonesia, to Azerbaijan (there is absolutely no evidence on the Talysh thing being "active", yet nonetheless, it is there), to Egypt; for Pashtunistan (there are really no sources calling for an independent Pashtun state to break away FROM AFGHANISTAN, yet its here); to Laos... I could go on to a three-digit list probably if I wanted of examples. The point is, for the sake of consistency, I don't think the rule applies. The rationale given usually falls under the lines of media jamming (which even democratic countries resort to, let alone China), surely if this applies to Nigeria or France (see Reunion), it definitely applies to China. Of course, for some reason, people get all angry; of course, how could such a ridiculous thing even be on there. The problem is that the website is proof enough for me, when Somalis in Kenya links to the Somali people page and I see no actual hard proof that they have an independence movement (though it is certainly more believable than saying the don't, there still isn't any proof, to apply your standard; at least we have our website for Manchukuo). And notably, a couple of the pages about these independence movements are about as sourced as my Manchuria page that got deleted.

3) Lastly: if the conspiracy theory that the movement is run by Japanese people should be evoked, let me note that, once again, that could apply, with much more truth, to a number of the things here. And I don't think its a problem if it were true; historically, it has often been the case that independence movements were originally invented for the purposes of a foreign empire (see Romania, for example). --Yalens (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

One more note: as for the use of separatist websites as reliable sources, I can give many examples of use. But let us return to the page regarding Kosovo this started on. There are several references to comments posted on websites, most notably regarding "African secessionists", and while there is an article about comments, this is from a completely internet-based news service. Regarding Manchukuo, there are references to it (i.e. Manchu separatism) by Han Chinese in their forums, but I think this is at least somewhat notable: http://torguqin.wordpress.com/hanfu . I.e., this is a site about Han Chinese clothing, but it is also an established organization in Toronto (i.e., a Han Chinese cultural institution). They make reference to the existence of Manchu separatism, so it isn't to say that its completely unheard of, at least... I suppose this would seem "lame" at first, but what I'm trying to say is that, pretty much, media reports or not, its not so hoax-ish, to the point where Han Chinese are aware of it enough to make references to its existence, either (in the case of that site) noting that the Han needing to assert their own culture's uniqueness to revive it from a past of suppression is not unlike that of the current minorities of China oppressed by the Han themselves; or otherwise lamenting possible future shrinkage of their state. I just don't think that media alone should be the only arbiter of existence--Yalens (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're second paragraph discussing the Manchu question seemed to me a lot like personal bias... but really... do you have any idea about the Lakotah issue... at all? Did you do any research at all on that one...? Because, not only do we have a whole page on it, you could practically call it de facto independent. Not only that, as for the "popular support" issue, we have, as we note on Lakotah's page, the 77% figure. Lakotah is in fact, well-known enough to be discussed in diplomatic talks... did you really try to delete it? I mean, you'd think you'd do well to actually learn about the topic discussed before tampering, you know...--Yalens (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup

Re: "burning out when caring about this issue before." Sometimes I hate working on the 53 coup article but I can't stand the tought of leaving it as is. Inshallah I'll do the grunt work and others such as yourself who want to change the Kurdo/Skywriter version can just show up and make a comment on the what you like or don't. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Next step on coup article

What do you think of the new Kurdo/sky version of the lead? If you prefer the rewrite as of Feb 28 (that I thought people had agreed on), what would you prefer to do - start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment now? or sort out a rewrite of the huge abrahamian quote and ask for comments on both at the same time? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a new sheriff in town: User:Work permit who is mediating the article very ably. The possibility that this long-standing mess will finally be cleaned up is very high now. You do not have to get involved, but I invite you to come look at the progress being made! Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet has started a Request for mediation. I see light at the end of the tunnel! --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing links to Wikimedia projects in references

Hi! Why should they be treated differently in ref? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see... it makes sense. I will try to modify the script in order to account for this exception. Thank you. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of School of Practical Philosophy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is School of Practical Philosophy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Practical Philosophy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom notice: 1953 Iranian coup POV

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#1953 Iranian coup POV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

before editing this article could you please try to be as well informed about the subject matter as possible, and may be discuss potential changes on the discussion page, I have reverted your edit it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the structure of language and writing systems. dolfrog (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued on Talk:Spelling. SnowFire (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nico Smith

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish messiah claimants

Note, I undid your revert. In the event someone reverts one of my edits, I usually ask for an explanation on the talk page. Regards -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded: Talk:List_of_messiah_claimants#Recent_revert -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Calling to ask if you're going to respond at the above talk. You made a point to intervene there, so before I take any action there, I'd like to be certain that you are on board with the program. If there is some issue of concession, you can also just say "concede". Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope your vacation went well. I restored my versions of false messiah (your writing is hidden) and list of messiah claimants (revert), and left a talk at talk:list of messiah claimants. Regards -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

The navigation boxes you deleted explain waht spelling is about. Spelling is about the structure of langauge being used, which depends on the writing system being used and as many on this version of Wikipedia use English then there is a need to understand the spelling variations from around the world according tho the dialect being used. So I am not too sure as to whether you understand what spelling is all about. dolfrog (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

I was looking at Talk:September 11 and saw I was kind of a dick to you back in 2007, re this edit [1]. Just wanted to pop in and apologize. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Revolt of the Comuneros GA review

Hi, I've started the GA review of this article at Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros/GA1 and left some comments. My comments on the endnotes not being referenced need to be addressed before I can pass the article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Constitution quotes

(edited in my own comment originally on Srich32977's talk page back here, not a fan of deleting these so might as well have the debate here):

Re your recent edits: I'm not so sure consistency is THAT important, but if we must be consistent, can we be consistent in *not* using cquote and using quote instead? The cartoony quote marks add nothing and look silly, and I believe that {{quote}} is recommended for longer quotations anyway. SnowFire (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. For my part, I'll leave the quotes as is. The format is now the same across all the Articles, Admendents, etc. (Moreover, the quotations are now correct -- I proofread pretty carefully and made a lot of corrections.) The quote marks are cartoonish, but they distinguish the Constitution language from other commentary in the articles. Also, they serve to show the older style of Capitalization was deliberate. Finally, the Constitution itself is important enough where such distinguishment is relevant and useful to the reader. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great if you proofread these, but I'm not talking about the *content* of the Amendment nor the capitalization therein. I'm simply referring to how the Amendments and Articles are set off from the rest of the text - I personally think {{cquote}} looks terrible for this context. I'm not sure that this is a useful distinguishing feature either - I doubt people will think "oh, that has cartoon quotes, it must be from the Constitution." I don't really see how this is a useful distinguisher at all, or if people will "know" somehow that the huge quotation marks means that it's from the Constitution.

That said, I'll try and start a conversation on this somewhere else, since this would be a notable change. SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Specter

Hey SnowFire. Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010/archive1; I was beginning to get concerned with the lack of participation in that FAC. I've made my first response to your comments; please let me know if you feel more is needed. — Hunter Kahn 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA for the Revolt of the Comuneros

I see that you finally get the status. Congrats, I am very glad with your translation and referencing work. My best regards ;-) Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia

When I posted why I was mad, I meant trying to find talk pages without articles. There should be a tag so it can be visible on a log, which pages should be speedy deleted. I know, this should have been on The Village Pump not on Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia, but I just wanted people to know if you come across something don't expect the next person to do it. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal where exactly you post something, so don't worry about it. That said, I'm not sure what harm talk pages without articles cause - nothing can get to them without a link, so it's generally a minor issue of house cleaning, and if you find them I'm sure you can just toss a speedy delete or move tag easily on them. And an admirable goal for sure to always fix problems, but one that can lead to burnout as well if you're not careful. SnowFire (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

October NARA scanathon

Hi, you attended the scanathon at the National Archives in October. I recently noticed that most participants have yet to upload scanned documents to Commons, so I just wanted to check and see if you have any files to upload. Please use the October 2011 NARA Backstage Pass category when uploading (and tag any files you already uploaded without it) so we can track them. Any documents you upload will also cataloged by NARA, as well as being available for Wikimedians to use, so this is important! Also, if you have any photos from the tour or other aspects of the event, please be sure to upload those as well. Thanks! Dominic·t 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Talk:108 Stars of Destiny#Merger with individual character articles

Hi, I know you've already said your piece but User:Neelix says that more discussion is needed, so we hope to hear from you again. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Threat!!!

I'll get you for this. Because of your interesting point at Talk:Union Flag I have now been forced, forced I tell you, to go off and read Flag of the United Kingdom, an article of whose existence I was previously blissfully unaware. You swine! I am 346 years old and have no time for this. That whole question seems entirely nonstraightforward to me, and I will be very interested to see if anyone bites and if so what responses you get to your aside. Interesting stuff. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha! My nefarious plan is in motion! Nothing can possibly stop it now! SnowFire (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Marge Flag of the United Kingdom into Union Jack

Hi, I have started a Discussion Here you might be interested. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter/Pedro III

• Hi, this is a mass-produced message which means it may duplicate a message already on your Talk:page. As a result of the lack of reference to specific sources or guidelines such as WP:SOVEREIGN, User:Qwyrxian closed the RM at Talk:Peter III of Portugal but said a new RM could be started if new evidence was presented. This I have done after discussion with Qwyrxian and User:Lecen. This means that your previous support or oppose will not be counted, and must be resubmitted. However please note Qwyrxian's request that support/oppose be made with reference to specific arguments guidelines or sources, and (quote) especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, (unquote). Thanks for your time. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting your old merger

Please note that I am suggesting a partial revert of your old merger, see Talk:Conflict (process). I have rewritten the merged article, and I suggest that the move and merge are undone. I'd appreciate your thoughts on article's talk. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article link on Talk Page

Howdy, I placed the link on the talk page. It should probably only be left up there temporarily. So if you let me know you have viewed/saved it, I'll then remove it. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire, Just checking in. Did you get a chance to download it? It will be automatically deleted tomorrow. Sincerely, ----Romaioi (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Opus Dei navbox

I think you're right, I was probaly too hasty in pasting it on too many pages. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hikmat Abu Zayd & Lenin Peace Prize

According to the page on Hikmat Abu Zayd, She received the Lenin Peace Prize in December 1970, does that help with the flag?Naraht (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, confirms it should be the UAR one. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Is Grunt optional or not?

First off, I really appreciate your feedback and interest, so thank you. I got your point before you reiterated; in my opinion, the actual recruitment of Grunt is completing his recruitment mission (not opening the tank). So I decided to enter the game and check the quest log. To my surprise, I discovered that opening the tank is part of Grunt's recruitment mission (I originally thought it was a separate quest). So you are right :) --Niwi3 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Payagua language

FYI, if you add an "ethnicity" parameter to the language infobox, you can link to the article on the people from there too. — kwami (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the ratification maps you added to US Constitutional Amendment articles; they're a great addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your revert of Clean up of dashes

Well, that's your "preference". Surely you recognize that other editors might have a different preference. It seems to me that dashes are more efficient and clutter the markup less, per Occam's Razor. I hope you don't go on a revert crusade; as you say, it's somewhat trivial. Carlstak (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are overreacting. I didn't challenge your revert, did I? You are also quite mistaken, I have edited Revolt of the Communeros previously; as an active member of the Wikipedia Spain project, the subject is of special interest to me. I am on no crusade, I was just doing routine maintenance. Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Valkyria Chronicles III

The thing is that Bill Clinton is a valid name. It's used by literally everyone who has ever existed, including himself and his entire campaign; most "nicknames" for people are like that. "Valkyria Chronicles III", however, is simply not a name that exists; it is completely made-up, it is completely invalid. Sega has not used it, and no publisher or developer tied to them has ever used it. There is only "戦場のヴァルキュリア3" (plus a potential "UNRECORDED CHRONICLES", as well as "EXTRA VERSION"); until Sega wants to finally localize the thing, there will only ever be exactly that.

Sources are making these things up, and they do it all the time. At some point, their ability to decide on titles this way needs to be called into question, but no one would ever dare ask about it but me. This is because most people simply ignore that the problem exists, and/or claiming that it's not "big enough"... they're intentionally ignoring facts and creating things for themselves, what more do you want? Despatche (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Magic core set merges

FWIW, I have proposed merging M10, M11, M12, M13 and M14 to core sets, 2009-present pbp 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

all blue

Sorry I don't know what's happening with the end of the blu block below.

Hi. Could I please ask you to look at Amazon.com and consider whether you want to drop oppose. I am going to ask for relist. Cheers. And thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis FAC

Hello SnowFire. I was hoping you could review the changes that myself, and RedPhoenix made to the article based on your suggestions. I am hoping we can gain a vote of support from you. : )--SexyKick 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:SexyKick: Yah, I looked over the article changes last night. I'll try and comment further tonight if I get the time. SnowFire (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Finite subdivision rule

I've made some changes per your comments. Thanks for your help! Let me know what other changes you'd like to see. Brirush (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

SES/SoPP

I noticed that a while back you had an idea to merge these two articles into one. I have just added this new, reliable source [2] to the SOP article (it struck me as odd that it hadn't been included) and noticed the following line:

According to the official spokesperson for the New York chapter, Dr. Monica Vecchio–an adjunct professor of English at Baruch who has been involved with group since 1967–S.E.S. and the School of Practical Philosophy are “the same thing with different names. There are 70 or 80 [branches] around the world. Each share the same course curriculum, with the same content. The principles are the same, the practices are the same, the stream of discussion is the same.”

Based on this new information, I support your case for a merge of the two articles. The legal distinction between the two organizations is as irrelevant as, say, Halliburton Co. versus Halliburton Company Germany GmbH. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

UserRoberthall7: Sounds good to me, re-merge them! I long thought they should be merged even before your source but I didn't feel like fighting it out with a few editors who wanted it kept separate despite the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Practical Philosophy as "merge." SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I never feel like fighting it out either - but more to the point, I've no idea how to do the re-merge. Perhaps you could chime in at the SoPP Talk page to see if we can reach WP:CONS and maybe someone will step forward to do it? -Roberthall7 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

In reply to this, I never suggested that WP:CONSENSUS wasn't a policy, so that was irrelevant. Secondly, that you believe there was a consensus however many months ago doesn't mean there was (even editors like Hell that wanted the discussion speedy closed believed there was no consensus), so citing WP:CONSENSUS on that point wasn't relevant to your edit either. That you think the discussion is pointless and shouldn't happen doesn't give you cause to edit-war to remove a tag inviting discussion, that's disruptive behavior. Editors gave their opinion despite your objections, and guess what? Looks like now there's a pretty obvious consensus, something that wouldn't have happened if the section had been "speedy closed". Please keep that in mind in the future the next time you want to shut down a discussion solely because a previous discussion had already occurred months ago. - Aoidh (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Aoidh: First of all, let me say that when I said there was obviously a consensus in the previous discussion, I didn't know that some of the final "keep separate" comments were made after you'd posted the "new" merge discussion. (Barek's reply to me, and what you already said about Hell's comment on there being no consensus before.) With what I knew at the time, it looked like you'd gotten cheesed off you'd lost the merge discussion 12:5, so you decided to reset the vote to 0:0, because obviously the first one was all wrong. So in that, I was too harsh, but for what is what I hope an understandable reason.

Secondly, I love talk page discussion, and I'm happy you actually used the talk page rather than bulldoze through everything and start an edit war. Really! However. While I'd have been absolutely with you for keeping the RFC & tags on the page for a month... maybe even three months... your merge tag was placed on the article in April 2013. My anti-merge comment was placed in December 2013. And multiple users removed the merge tag, not just me; I'm not the type to edit war over such things. 10 months is way too long for such a discussion to be considered so active as to merit a tag on the article. However, don't take my word for it; please feel free to ask at the Village Pump "how long should merge tags remain on articles before a discussion is closed." I suspect you will find that my position that there's a "time limit" and it'd been tripped here is not particularly controversial. A system that allowed the tag to remain forever so long as 1 editor disagreed would be ripe for making our articles look ridiculous.

Finally, how to put this. You have seen fit to cast judgment on my original comment as a worthless "me too, I support" comment. And you were the one being incendiary claiming in your edit summary that your opinions are policy, and everyone who disagreed with you just had "a bunch of random opinions with no basis in policy". You are a biased party and not fit to judge such things. To be clear, I am an equally biased judge for positions against my own; I wonder how on earth everyone can be so wrong on the Internet, too. This is why neutral administrators close debates that are remotely close, not someone who's said their piece already. As for whether my comment was "compelling" - I've read parts of an entire book on just the mine fire, and I know there are more books available, as you do as well I'm sure. Hence, to quote myself, "There's definitely enough material to support two articles." Brevity is not a flaw. In fact, that's the most compelling reason I can imagine for two separate articles, lots of material. Again, if you're really curious, don't take my word for it, go ask a random friend. (If you really want to get an unbiased opinion, either don't say which position you favor, or pretend that you're me, so that if anything your friend will feel inclined to go against it. If they still say that such an opinion isn't compelling despite you claiming it was yours, well, it's probably really not compelling then.)

Anyway, this is all irrelevant to the articles themselves, so I applaud any work you do on improving them. I very much disagree with your understanding of Wikipedia procedure, but it's quite irrelevant compared to content creation, so I hope we can move on. SnowFire (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The diff you provided above was in response to your comment "...which means that the arguments on the 5 !vote merge side would have needed to be amazingly compelling". Consensus is not a vote, and many of the comments (like this) lacked the "compelling" qualifier you mentioned, coming across as little more than "votes". Consensus is not a numbers game and saying that one position would need to be "amazingly compelling" where the other is fine with merely having more numbers is not in line with Wikipedia policy, my comment in the diff you gave is merely pointing that out. I did not call it worthless any more than you called the non-"amazingly compelling" edits worthless; I never said that, so please don't accuse me of such. As to me claiming that my opinions are policy, that would require diffs, otherwise I truly have no idea what you're referring to, seeing as how I didn't cite any policy. This was in response to this, it's not "quite clear"; most of those comments have no basis in policy, merely offering their opinions (such as yours). I'm not saying this to attack your comment, only to point out that your comment would have to be "amazingly compelling" (i.e. based very clearly on Wikipedia policy) to make it a "quite clear" consensus. Rather than a clear consensus, there was no consensus at all (I'm not saying that out of bias, I'm repeating what others have said), so I reverted it intending to try to open a new discussion but honestly forgot to address it afterwards and that part was my fault, which I tried to address the next day.

My intention wasn't to keep the tag on there because I get some maniacal joy out of seeing tags on articles, but to get a consensus one way or the other. That has now happened, so I removed the tag from that article and the mine fire article. If the discussion had been "speedy closed" as you suggested there would still be no consensus, with or without the tag. My issue wasn't the tag it was the discussion, and I had hoped that the tag would invite editors to visit the discussion and opine and maybe give some new viewpoint that would encourage further discussion. However, I do apologize for this, as that came across as more harsh than I intended, I was just a little annoyed that you had removed it despite an ongoing discussion (as opposed to a stale, months old one) and that I had somehow restored the tag without paying attention, instead of removing it, which was my intention. For that I apologize, that was a bit uncalled for, and now I'll get off of here and enjoy a cup of hot chocolate before bed. - Aoidh (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Aoidh: Mrf. I recognize you're trying to disengage with your final comment, and I'm up too late too, so I'll try to be brief. (And fail. Sorry.)

• Let us assume for a moment that you were right and there was no consensus before. (The fact that Hell in a Bucket said so does not necessarily close the issue, and note that he said so while still suggesting your new RFC be speedy-closed.) That still doesn't justify keeping the merge tag on the article forever - see Hell in a Bucket's comment here while we're quoting him - and by the time I made my February 2012 comment, there clearly was a consensus from the 4 new anti-merge responses in your old RFC. So... while I too was a tad harsher than I'd have liked, I'm still not seeing what the issue is. There would have been a consensus just fine had the RFC been closed there with my comment, as there was enough input by then. And anyway, I didn't actually close the RFC, did I? I just said I felt it could be if an admin agreed.
• The fact I suggested an early close to "shut you down" grates on you. I get it. But understand that your statements like "I'm not saying this to attack your comment, but [PARAPHRASE: your comment wasn't grounded in policy and should have been discounted]" have the same effect on me. Disagree with me, great! Claim my comment is illegitimate and should be ignored as a matter of procedure is only going to antagonize others. Such as me.
• You're misinterpreting my stance on consensus. "Amazingly compelling" = "one side's votes are much 'stronger' than the rest to justify overruling the majority." So I'm hardly letting the anti-merge "off the hook" and allowing them to provide just a vote. Let's put it this way in a nice abstract fashion:

1. 8 medium votes for Foo, 5 medium votes for Bar. Admin closes for Foo. (Or perhaps calls it "no consensus", but Foo happens to be the current state of affairs anyway, so same effect.)
2. 8 weak votes for Foo (e.g. just "Support Foo" or editors recruited from a forum), 5 medium votes for Bar. Admin closes for Bar after discounting some of the Foo votes.
3. 8 medium votes for Foo, 5 unusually strong votes for Bar (e.g. "Foo is illegal", "Foo voters voted without knowing some critical piece of information"). Admin closes for Bar.

We want to determine the following case:

• 8 votes are for Foo, 5 votes are for Bar. According to someone on the Bar side, the Foo votes are weak and "just a vote." Clearly situation #2 applies, right?

That is exactly why I defended my original comment as not "just a vote," because I do agree it is important that both sides offer real arguments. I'd be the first to discount a vote that just said "oppose" with no explanation. However, I vociferously disagree that comments such as my actual ones should be discounted, any more than any random pro-merge comments should be discounted. My comment was short, but that is not a flaw! It was on point, the only point that mattered since your entire argument was that there was too much duplicate material. You disagree with my opinion, fine, but that alone does not qualify it as a "weak" !vote. The idea that the anti-merge comments "have no basis in policy, merely offering their opinions (such as yours)'" is an opinion, not a fact. This is why I'm still replying; I'd happily let it go if I didn't get the vibe from your comments of "because I believe you're wrong, your opinion should be discounted," a standard that would blatantly lead to Aodihpedia. Yes, yes, I know you don't really think that, but see above, you are not a qualified neutral judge of such matters as "are votes that oppose my position valid / compelling / etc." You can tell that in the abstract example above, while the Bar side MIGHT be right, you can't just ask them; you need to bring in a third party.

• If you want to commiserate with me, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Injustice. I fully believe I am 100% right on proper article structure here, and people have even argued for an early close against me despite being, IMHO, totally wrong and on their way to endorsing an awful quote farm psuedo-article. If I was King of Wikipedia I'd close the debate in my favor because everyone else is just wrong and missing the point. But I'm not claiming their opinions are baseless or not grounded in policy, even the short comments. And moreover, I'm willing to defer to a neutral admin, who will almost surely rule against my side - just as a neutral admin would have closed your old Merge RFC as, at best, "no consensus, remove the tag and try again later."
• As a final comment: To be 100% clear, there is nothing wrong with trying to convince people for a merge, even 10 months later. I had suspected you were gaming the system at the time - trying to reset the vote count so you could sneak a merge past, which would require a strong oppose - but I now see you were sincere. Anyway, I pre-emptively apologize if any of this comes off as overly harsh, as I've written this from 3:45-4:45 AM my time in a truly ill-advised act, but I should give up editing / writing now and just go to sleep. SnowFire (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll only say this one thing, I didn't suggest your comment should be miscounted. What I did suggest is that your comment that there is a "quite clear" consensus wasn't accurate, given that many of the comments were agreements with other opinions, and all of them were (educated) opinions. The only time there's that level of disagreement and still a "clear consensus" is when one side is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy and the other side of clearly not, and that's not the case here. If there was a consensus (whether or not there was), it most certainly was not "quite clear", as the consensus was a discussion based on opinions rather than unambiguously backed by any Wikipedia policy. I probably could have been more succinct when saying "random opinions", but I wasn't suggesting that your opinion counted for nothing, and I'm not really pushing that there was "no consensus", only that there wasn't a clear consensus which seemed to be your rationale for the edit, so I wanted to try to get that consensus. Anyways, this cold has kept me up long enough so now I'm going to try (yet again) to sleep. - Aoidh (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the right link?

Thank you for pointing out here that I had used the "wrong link." But, what's the right link? I thought we were writing an encyclopedia, not playing 20 Questions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:R'n'B: The disambig page itself is fine, I think (hence just the reversion I did). There isn't a good link - the sentence just means "Castile" in the sense of the entire region of Castile. The political entity that dissolved into Spain in 1715 isn't it, the modern administrative divisions aren't it, it's just Castile. If you absolutely must avoid the disambig page, I guess Castile (historical region) is the least bad, or removing the link entirely. SnowFire (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Pérez / Joseph Perez

Hello, SnowFire. About "Perez", spelled without the accent, in his books... I guess you are talking about translations into English... aren't you? Kintaro (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kintaro: Correct. All of the English books by him (that I own) definitely omit the accent. I have a single Spanish book from him, and that one does include the accent... but I'd be most curious how he appears in French books, if anything, since he is French after all. A quick Amazon check showed one recent French book of his including the accent, so idk. The fact he's consistently dropped the accent in English translation, and this being the English Wikipedia, still inclines me to respect his wishes and leave it as just "Perez" though. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He perhaps allowed non-accented "Perezes" in his books when translated into English. I don't own his books (or have read one of them) but I live in France and, if you want, I can check it in a public library... Regards ! Kintaro (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that might be interesting. Shame we can't just ask him! I don't know if it's his preference or his publisher's preference or if it was all an accident. SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kintaro: Haha, you might be right after all. I just double-checked, and my 2005 copy of "The Spanish Inquisition" in English in fact uses Pérez with an accent. Weird that the books were inconsistent, but if there's a recent official usage in English with an accent, you're probably right after all! Sorry about the trouble. SnowFire (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good! but there was no trouble, only a nice conversation. Thank you to you too, and good luck. Kintaro (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:National questions

Well, it's a bit of a strange category I admit, but I think the key question is: Is National Question itself a notable topic? It seems to me that it probably is, and that it reflects some weird 19th century type of a nationalist dispute. I don't think that everything with "question" in its title should go in the same category, but ones that fit in this particular 19th century geopolitical conception probably should.--Pharos (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Pharos The only references in the National question article have to do with it specifically in regards to Marxism, though, specifically Marxist strategies in the first half of the 20th century. The entirety of the category has nothing to do with that. I'd be pretty happy with just redirecting the article National Question to Marxism and the National Question, myself, then deleting the category. (Or perhaps restructuring National Question as a very strange disambig page.) SnowFire (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Candleabracadabra ‎on Cuisine of Hawaii

Please see this note. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

About this article, I agree with your suggestions about the name. Either that or it should go back to the original name of "death by a thousand cuts". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Supersaiyen312: Yeah, I agree. Can you open a WP:RM? The article seems to be move-protected at the moment, although I don't see evidence of the sock puppetry the locker complained about... SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's only move protected so registered users can move it. I can move it right now if you want. So which one? "Death by slicing" or "death by a thousand cuts"? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Supersaiyen312: Good question. On second thought, maybe we should open a formal RM after all? Seems like there's an argument for either one. (I'd probably personally prefer "death by a thousand cuts" but that might raise the hackles of people who think it's 'wrong' somehow, and "death by slicing" is an acceptable compromise.) SnowFire (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reconquista

My intention in putting "so-called" before Reconquista was in fact to cast doubt, serious doubt, on the validity of the term, which is less and less accepted as valid by historians. See the section "Concept and Duration" in the Reconquista article.

Is it all right if I put it back in?

If you read Spanish, there's quite a bit of bibliography on it, such as

La Reconquista: génesis de un mito historiográfico

www.redalyc.org/pdf/589/58922939009.pdf

by MFR Saloma - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

En este trabajo planteo una serie de cuestiones acerca de la validez cien- tífica delconcepto de “Reconquista” y su uso por los medievalistas. Al mismo tiempo ...

---

[PDF]La Reconquista: un estado de la cuestión

https://www.durango-udala.net/.../1/2_1945_6.pdf

by FG FITZ - ‎

Resumen: Desde finales del siglo XIX el concepto de Reconquista ha ..... Desde luego, en el terreno estrictamente historiográfico la validez y pertinencia.

---

Reconquista: ¿Término correcto? ¿Mito decimonónico?

www.nirdia.com/reconquistareconquest-appropriate-te...

Apr 18, 2014 - El término Reconquista define en la historia española una etapa de ...años, muchos han puesto en tela de juicio la validez de este concepto.

@Deisenbe:: Hello. First off, you don't have to ask me permission for anything! ... that said, I think I still disagree. Okay, I only briefly skimmed some of your links, but this still seems to be early days. Wikipedia cares about the scholarly consensus for facts, but often times uses the popular terminology, i.e. whatever's filtered down to casual history books & magazine usage and the like. As far as I know, it's still called the Reconquista in English. And some of the points in that Reconquista section aren't actually relevant to whether the term is useful - for example]

"Some modern historians dispute the whole concept of Reconquista (as well as that of a prior conquista by the Moors) as a concept created a posteriori in the service of later political goals."

Well... so what? Good information to bring up, but there are *lots* of post-facto terms out there, from the Dark Ages to World War I. Now, "Dark Ages" has actually fallen out of favor with historians as well as in general use, so that term isn't usually used elsewhere, but not because it was a term created "a posteriori", but merely because, well, it's fallen out of favor. "Middle Ages" is equally anachronistic and potentially misleading, and it still gets used all the time. Same with terms slanted by politics / political goals - if they're in common usage anyway, they still can be used. Names are just names, there's no guarantee they're accurate/correct/incorrect/etc. (The Hundred Years War did not last 100 years, the Reconquista was not really one unified campaign, etc.)

Anyway, it's possible you can convince me that "Reconquista" is no longer used seriously in English, or is a term under a cloud, but in that case, I'd much rather replace it with whatever successor term is used. Adding in "so-called" just serves to make the reader wonder 'what?' and distract them with a side issue. SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks / Help re: Gary Hart

Thanks for being one of the voices (well, typists) of reason on the Gary Hart article and Talk page.

As you probably know, two anonymous users (or perhaps the same user sock puppeting) keep vandalizing both pages. In some cases this appears to be simply due to ignorance of Wikipedia rules and/or laziness about them. (Posting opinion as fact without citations, repeatedly reverting properly cited information, repeatedly reposting claims disrproven by citations, etc.)

This has clearly reached edit-war status. Can you please post a warning on the two offending users' Talk pages and ask them to play by the rules? I'm new to all this but apparently if two of use do that it will stand us in better stead for the next phase (third opinion, RFC, etc.)

Just an FYI: I have reason to believe further corrections to cited sources, and new publications from reliable sources highly relevant to the Gary Hart article, are forthcoming. So more of this sort of vandalism may happen in response, unfortunately. If you have any further suggestions about how to efficiently and effectively prepare for this and encourage airing of all viewpoints while discouraging disruptive edits and counterproductive craziness, I'm all ears. Thanks! Seanjsavage (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving Magic set categories from blocks to sets

You recently nominated the move of categories from blocks to sets without notifying the community on those pages. The nomination process even outlines this as: "* Consider adding {{subst:cfdnotice2|Category name|date=yyyy Month dd|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the doc page at Template:Cfdnotice2/doc for more information on how to use this template as well as other similar templates that can be used to notify the category's creator or related WikiProjects specifically."

You did not do this. The sets/block categories will be renominated to be moved back to block categories. It is a bad idea to have the categories recognized as sets instead of blocks because recently there was a discussion to shrink the number of Magic articles by eliminating articles just for sets and merging them into blocks. You also misrepresented your case when you mentioned "these sets are sometimes organized into 'blocks'." This could not be further from the truth. All modern sets are organized into blocks. The only time this wasn't done was in the early formative years for a handful of sets, and even then there has been some retroactive organization into blocks (see Ice Age, Alliances, Coldsnap). Leitmotiv (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv:: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic:_The_Gathering#Potential_CFD_of_interest , so I did try to bring in some other commentators.

I don't follow your objection. It is 100% uncontroversial that everything is definitely a set. Look at List of Magic: The Gathering sets. However, not all sets are blocks - the core sets, Magic Origins, Un-sets, etc. So your "****all****" is false. And it doesn't matter what may or may not be the case in the future; the category is for all sets, past and present. You seem to be arguing that the merged category should be moved to "MTG blocks" which... I'd think is an incorrect title, but a merged category is definitely the way to go. The distinction between "set" and "set part of a block" is in no way important enough to stick them in unrelated categories, which would imply that M15 & Journey into Nyx are totally different entities, when they're not. They're both sets you can buy and get Standard-legal cards from. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate you here, you can debate me and others at the nomination page. However you poorly attempted a notification nearly a week after you nominated it and even then you failed to let anyone know what the nomination was about. So we are going to do this more properly, shall we? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You made your claims here, so I don't think it's totally crazy to respond to them here, but sure, go ahead and nominate the CFD for review.

I intentionally didn't mention the subject of the nomination too closely, because people often times prejudice the debate and get accused of canvasssing if they appear to say "come here and vote on $VERY_BIASED_DESCRIPTION_OF_TOPIC". Just "come here" is preferred in my opinion for future reference.

In retrospect, I'd like to have mentioned the CFD on the Magic sets article talk page as well, but I honestly didn't forsee this response. I consider this something akin to a technical fix for something obviously wrong. Sets are sets are sets. SnowFire (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Station stuff

Since you participated in the RM discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February_2015, you may have thoughts worth commenting on at the related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, including especially the survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Simpler questions / concise survey. If so, please comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War

I have proposed an alternative formulation, you may wish to comment. WCM_email 20:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:228 Incident

There is another RM discussion. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael (archangel)

Hello, SnowFire - I saw your recent sensible edit to James (brother of Jesus), and I thought you probably have the background to judge an edit to Michael (archangel). What do you think about this edit? [3] I wonder particularly about the addition of "correctly". Corinne (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I see it has been reverted. Corinne (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: Yeah, that's definitely revertable, even if moot now. "Correctly" is asking for trouble even when it's, well, correct, since you end up with statements like "{Atheists/Muslims/Mormons} correctly believe {unquestionably true fact X}", and that colors the rest of the sentence, either implying they're also correct about everything else, or else setting up some contrast with a different doctrine which may not be warranted. SnowFire (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in bringing Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption to Featured Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, just ask you off the Talk page as it's crowded already, for this case. This case uniquely or should other cases be similar? Just curious. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Cases where the subject has consistently portrayed themself by $TITLE, where presumably the English-language media mirrors, should use $TITLE even if it's totally different than their birth name or has wacky non-standard orthography. (Pen names for one extreme example.)

Vanilla people for whom there's a mix of sources and not a clear self-preference? Sure go ahead and use the "standard" accents/Romanization/etc. for that language as defined by the Wikiproject's style guidelines. So Serbians would get accents if that's accurate, mainland Chinese people would get pinyin (unless better known by Western names) while Taiwanese would get Wade-Giles, etc. SnowFire (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I guessed as much, I see you're new to this subject, which is fine. But we do have MOS guidelines that require full fonts for Eastern Europeans. Which is why all Eastern Europeans have full fonts and no Chinese have pinyin tones. If you don't believe me check randomly, working down from the Baltic to the Balkans: Category:Latvian singers, Category:Polish actors Category:Czech ice hockey players, Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia, Category:Hungarian scientists, Category:Croatian writers, Category:Serbian footballers. Can you see a single article that has Twitter fonts? Can you see any other bio on the whole of en.wikipedia which is not written in full accurate Unicode fonts, as this one also used to be. Please forgive me saying it here but as a new name to this discussion I thought I'd point this out. It is of course your choice. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I believe you, and it might well be correct in the case of 98% of articles, but I still think it'd be wrong to apply it everywhere, and if the current guidelines say otherwise, than those guidelines should change. For one extreme example: people who explicitly change their name (e.g. transgender people, converts to Islam a la Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali) almost always appear under their changed name barring weird things like them changing their name quietly long after their notability expired. It'd be very weird if somebody could change their name from Pérez to Potter, but not Pérez to Perez. SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well yes we do apply it everywhere, wherever Eastern European names occur across a corpus of 5 million articles. Except this one article, so why is this one article different? "if the current guidelines say otherwise, than those guidelines should change." well then you'd need to start an RFC to change the content of the encyclopedia, as it stands the MOS requires full fonts. Do you mind if I ask, have you ever edited an East Europe biography article? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Yes, and it was a horrible nationalist mess that I have no desire to wade back into.

All rules have exceptions. I think it's fine if the standard answer on a per-language basis is "use the XYZ style of transliteration" which in the Serbian language case would be Ivanović. But if somebody self-identifies without the accent, with good sources? No different than if they changed their name, a la many immigrants to the Americas who Americanized / Hispanized their names, as appropriate. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

False messiah

Hello; you took part in a merge discussion on this title; I had closed it and carried out the merge, but it was subsequently restored. If you still have an opinion on the matter, I would invite you to comment at the discussion I've opened here. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Common cold pandemic

"Nobody writes about Common cold pandemic (4000 BC - 2016)" — This made me chuckle :) larryv (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

:) SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

False messiah discussion

Dear SnowFire -- I want to let you know that there is a discussion going on at False messiah about turning the page into a disambiguation page. Please join in the discussion. Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 18:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_America

Thank you for your help, SnowFire. I think it might expand the section a bit, but becomes much clear. If you have any suggestions or comments, feel free to communicate. Thanks again!

24.246.89.125 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Parent university v. school attended

I have the same issue of parent university v. school in the education field. I expect a physician to have attended a medical school, and a lawyer a law school, and an MBA a business school. Naming the parent university provides less information, if readers want to know that Wharton is part of UofP, the answer is just a click away. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox person. This also has to do with the alma_mater v. education debate. The parent university is the alma_mater but the medical, law, and business school are "education". We have to decide whether to get rid of the confusing alma_mater field and just keep education, or display both fields. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for your message. Have left response on my talk page. Redverton (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dropped reply. Redverton (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also left additional note to say I have reverted my changes. Redverton (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply. (Maybe I should just stop saying this, you're probably watching my page by now :) ). Redverton (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Invitation as an apology gift

To make up my "bureaucratic" behavior to you, maybe invitation to either of below discussions about File:Alison Parker reacting to gunman on live TV.png, the image that I uploaded, and the "Media response" section of the article would be my forgiveness:

• Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward#New infobox image (older discussion)
• Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward#Would anyone object to me removing the screenshot? (newer discussion)

George Ho (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Born2Cycle

I have been talking to Born2Cycle about his conduct. I was accused of "harassing" him at his talk page. I want to point out whatever rule he violated at pages, like Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) and Talk:Hawaii Five-O and Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. I want to mention WP:POINT, WP:civility, WP:AGF, WP:consensus. However, the more I read those, the harder pointing out violations may be. I don't know who is right or wrong about Born2Cycle. However, he was subject to ArbCom case four years ago. --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: If you're not sure who's wrong or right, then you probably should lay off attempting any formal procedure. Just don't engage with a user you don't get along with. Ignore B2C if you don't think you can work with him. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Would that mean not responding to his comments at article talk pages? Also, if I'm right, he may be disregarding opinions of others. However, re-reading comments in those talk pages, he apparently "listens" to views but disregards them as baseless or something. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, B2C and I tend to try to correct each other, resulting in lengthy, unnecessarily long discussions. However, his behavior is more of a "I'm-correct-you're-incorrect" attitude. I was trying to question his logic and use of common sense. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, that's exactly what it means: don't respond to his comments on article talk pages. If he's really really wrong, others are already ignoring him, or others will reply. If he merely has another opinion - so be it. Don't engage. You'll just go around in circles and waste both your time and his. SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to avoid his talk page for now. However, I hate to break this, but I have found ANI cases since the ArbCom case. B2C was also subject to ANI case in Feb. 2013. He was sanctioned for one year. Also, he was warned per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon after another ANI complaint in May 2013. Another ANI in May 2014. Another in January this year. Another ANI in October this year. How would my avoiding conflicts with him help after all reports on him? George Ho (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Because if you avoid conflicts with him, there won't need to be a report on him. Not every problem requires a big huge process to solve. Sometimes you can just avoid the problem in the first place.

Let me hypothesize what would happen if you attempt to raise an arbitration case against B2C. There are basically 3 possibilities: A) The admins reject the case, or take the case but have no remedies; B) There's an interaction ban between you & B2C; and C) One or both of you gets blocked. In the case of A, a bunch of time has basically been wasted as nothing came of it. In the case of B, it is the same result as I am basically suggesting you do voluntarily with no need for a process, no need to involve others. The case of C is the most interesting; perhaps B2C and/or you truly has run out the community's patience, and are doing more harm than good. In this case, if merited, there actually is some benefit to proceeding to a full process, because you can get a result that wouldn't happen otherwise. If you believe that B2C's actions are so dire as that they should be blocked/banned, then I suppose it might be worth proceeding. But.... this is a last resort. It is not done lightly. I would personally recommend against it. It is an option, but it is the final option.

The point is: if your complaint is small-bore, just self-impose an interaction ban on yourself, because that's what would happen anyway. If you're REALLY annoyed at B2C, then you should still just not interact with him and see if things get better, and if he's being a jerk to others - not merely having a different opinion - then you can, perhaps, cautiously indicate your support for an arbitration case against B2C, although ideally one focused on his conduct as a whole, not on your own interaction with him. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm doing the "whole" part: are this and that evidence enough? --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Those read as vanilla "difference of opinion", presented stridently perhaps, but nothing that unusual. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break

Hey. Sorry to bother again, but since our chat a few days ago I've had a chance to think, and quite honestly I'm going to take a step back from Wikipedia for awhile, so you don't have to worry about me bothering you again in January. I'm taking a break because I quite frankly need to assess my editing priorities; I've been an editor for 5 years, and whilst I was never really a prolific editor, I used to create a few DYK articles and what not every so often, but it's now been 2 years since I substantially edited an article, and if my priority right now is editing infobox formats then I think I really need to wonder what I'm doing here. My apologies for putting you through all this, but if I return then I'll be sure to notify you before I think about resuming this infobox stuff. Happy holidays! Redverton (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redverton: No problem, a break is healthy. I have 80% written articles I've never actually sent in, and still want to do some foolish things like nominate some of my articles for FA, but it's easy for me to get caught up in minutiae as well when writing new content tends to be much more rewarding. I do think infobox style is a good question to settle someday, though, even if you're not interested, but happy to wait for as long as needed if you'd like! SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man. I know what you mean about unfinished projects, as I've got a sandbox draft for Ray Nagin of all people, but again that was something I abandoned 2 years ago. I just feel like I had an epiphany moment, and I think this will be a substantial break at a minimum, so please don't feel you have to wait up on me. To be honest, I know big infobox discussions come up every so often, so I'm sure one will eventually surface where it will be applicable to raise this issue, so I guess I'll just keep a look out. In the meantime, I'll see if the famous Wikipedia addiction really can be broken! Redverton (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Utqiaġvik/Barrow RM

You recently participated in a discussion regarding the title of Utqiaġvik/Barrow, Alaska. There is currently a move request discussion of the article's title at Talk:Utqiaġvik, Alaska, if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  20:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Now at a new section. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

House of Croÿ move

Hallo, The House of Croÿ was never a sovereign house, as opposed to the House of Liechtenstein for example. They were a noble family, a very high one, but not sovereign as far as I know. Gryffindor (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Sounds plausible, but I don't see the relevance...? Is there some standard that royal families get "House of" and non-royal ones don't? I'd think it just goes off context, with ancient families often being "House of Foo" and modern ones just being "Foo Family." And just "Foo" only for very special cases and WP:COMMONNAME /titles. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If we don't make it relevant, any family can claim themselves to be "House of xy". Therefore it's better to keep the rule of sovereign and non-sovereign families. Gryffindor (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: I dunno, seems unlikely. Pretty sure WP:COMMONNAME would stop that. OTOH, it's possible that COMMONNNAME is against "House of Croy" too. Although even if it is - I haven't assessed the literature closely - my personal instinct would still be to use "Croy family" or the like, since just a lastname comes off as very abrupt to me. Feel free to open an RM if you want to solicit input. SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Discharge petition

Hey, I wasn't expecting such quick feedback on my edit to the article Discharge Petition. I respect your reversion, but I expanded the article's reach because as the article stood, the final reference to Westminster systems is really out of place. The final paragraph, I understand, tells why Westminster systems don't have an exact equivalent, but it should either be expanded (what I started to do), or removed I think.

If you want the article to continue emphasizing the usage of Discharge motions in Presidential systems of government, I respect that, but the final paragraph should be looked at.

Egroeg5 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: Thanks for the note. What's so out of place about the other systems section? I think a little comparative politics makes sense. I do think that your addition about how some countries reserve time on the legislative calendar for opposition motions is interesting - which ones? Is there a source for this? (I mean, I believe you, there's a lot of countries out there, just this is news to me.) That said, to be clear, I'd totally be in favor of some expansion of that section if you're willing to write it! Just I don't agree with reframing the article to be about the international discharge petition, when to my knowledge it simply doesn't exist outside the US. SnowFire (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I appreciate your reply. Reframing the article was not my intention, but I suppose the removal of "United States" from "United States Parliamentary Procedure" was unwise.

I mentioned the final paragraph being out of place because a conscience vote is almost laughably antithetical to a discharge motion.

• Discharge motions are a symbol against the majority leadership;
• A conscience vote is when the majority leadership actively encourage their caucus to vote freely without any fear.

That would be like Speaker Ryan telling the House Republican Caucus to vote whatever way they want on e.g. a gun control bill, and he wouldn't care less. (With the help of Republicans who secretly believe that all guns should be confiscated from Americans, the Democrats then repeal the 2nd amendment.)

Additionally, just as the Westminster counterpart to the U.S. Minority Leader is Leader of the Opposition, the counterpart to the Majority leader is Leader of the House, not the Prime Minister.

I will soon expand a discussion of comparisons to other specific Westminster countries.

Egroeg5 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: Thanks for your reply.

For the conscience vote, I'd actually argue that it is comparable, just with cause and effect reversed for your example. Members of Parliament are not legally bidden to vote for their party's agenda at all. In a sense, every single vote is a conscience vote, even if this is not true in practice. For matters like abortion where it's highly likely MPs would feel morally obligated to defy their party, I'd argue it's more the Party handing out permission to do something they would have done anyway. It's like the King in The Little Prince. "You're going to defy the Party on this bill? Okay I ORDER you to do that! You're going to vote with us on the next bill? I order you to do that too! See, I have 100% rate of obedience!" The point is, both discharge petition bills and conscience votes imply a split in the majority - that not all of the majority is on board for the leadership's plans, and so every member is voting their own way.

For Leader of the House, I'm confused. Yes, (Westminster) Leader of the House is comparable to the (US) House Majority Leader, but it is the Speaker who matters in the House, just as it is the Prime Minister who matters in the House of Commons. Unless the Leader of the House is more influential than I'd expect...? SnowFire (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire:

Members of Parliament would hardly defy their party, not least on a three-line whip, for example. In practice, party leadership can still punish rebels in Westminster systems. I think the point is that discharge petitions originate with the Minority and/or outright rebelling majority members, while conscience votes originate from the Majority leadership.

Another difference is that discharge petitions are used to try to get around obstructionism by the majority party (that controls committees). They force a vote on a bill that's stuck in committee. Anybody can bring a bill to a floor vote in a Westminster system, so there's no need for a discharge petition to exist, is there? The discharge petition is a last resort to get a floor vote on an Act/bill. Conscience votes are about whether an Act/bill passes in a vote: the vote is taken for granted.

Re: the Prime Minister, imagine a U.S. House Speaker who's also the ex officio President. Now do you think he would have any time to lead in the legislature? That's why the Leader of the House is so important. If you look at the infobox in the case of New Zealand, the Leader is above the Prime Minister. In the U.K. House infobox, the Prime Minister isn't even mentioned.

Egroeg5 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: I think we're talking past each other. For conscience votes, I think it's not entirely true that they "originate with the leadership." I'd argue that they're just as likely to be the leadership recognizing that there is discontent in the ranks and acknowledging that fact, rather than weakening their own authority by insisting on obedience, then being defied. Three-line whips are only rarely defied because they're not frequent, after all. The point is, the following scenario is true in both Washington & Westminster: the minority/opposition supports position A 100%. The majority supports position A 25%. In normal parliamentary procedure, this measure will not pass - because it never comes to a vote in the US, because everyone is expected to toe the party line in Westminster in the vote (sure, the vote happens, but the vote is a bit of a lie as to the true thoughts of the Party). If a discharge petition happens in the US, or a conscience vote happens in the UK/Australia/etc., then position A might well pass. Do you see the connection now?

For Prime Minister, sure, but I think we're again discussing different things. The Leader of the House is more involved with day-to-day parliamentary activities, sure. But the PM sets the agenda and is the spokesperson for the majority and what it wants to do. I guess perhaps mentioning both might be a fair compromise?

Also, for focus, I still disagree with the headers on US House vs. Legislatures. When I researched this article, like 99.8% of the material was on the US House version. The fact it exists at all in state legislatures required serious scrounging and nearly every drop I could find is already in the article already. I wish there was more written on it, but there isn't, and it seems clearly the secondary meaning. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire:

I think discussion has been sufficient.

• Point 1: regarding conscience votes, I now agree with your view.

• Point 2: regarding the PM and the Leader of the House, Prime Ministers usually give considerable latitude to their Leaders of the (lower) House, because of the demands of leading their cabinets, and because Leaders of the House often have more experience in advancing Acts. Also, most few Westminster systems (like Australia, the U.K., Germany etc.) are bicameral. In upper houses, there is no Prime Minister, so there, the Leader of the House is definitely more influential than the PM. In fact, the Government might not even have a majority in the national Senate or House of Lords: in those cases the Prime Minister would have almost no influence in the upper house, just as a Democratic U.S. Senate Majority Leader is not going to bow down before a Republican President.

Nevertheless, mentioning both Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House is a good compromise.

• Point 3: I concede the lack of attention on Discharge Petitions in U.S. state legislatures.

Egroeg5 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

League image changes

Oh, thanks for getting back to me. I'm pretty sure I was out of it (read: drunk) last night when I was doing those changes, that's why they look like they were written by a ten year old - I'm also pretty sure I made up most of the information. I understand why you would need better clarification for an image source. I play League of Legends and I found myself on the page and saw a lot of outdated info, and I plan to update a lot over the next few weeks, such as champion classification and a few other minor details. I will also see if I can procure some images of my own. Would using images from the official LoL site be valid? I might tweak the introductory bit again, but thanks for the heads up on 'hypey' language, I'll work on that. It's been a while since I did anything for a Wiki (and even then, it was for the individual wikis of some Indie app games, I've never been an active member of the actual Wikipedia community).

Over the next few weeks, I plan on making a page listing all the League Champions akin to the one for Overwatch. If you are by chance a League player, I would appreciate some help on that.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatClockwyrm (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right about Defense of the Ancients, but you do realize it has since expanded into Dota 2, whose page I would argue is even longer than League's, and more in-depth as well? Thank you for giving me this link, because it will help me put some more hyperlinks in League's article. It also gives me a basis upon which I can add to League's impact and legacy, which I plan to start working on soon - as well as modernizing its images.

I hate to sound confrontational but I feel as if I will continue to work on the League page. I will do my best to keep it concise (I have already deleted some info), but considering some of the things that have their own page, including character lists for other franchises; I think making one for the biggest video game in the world would not be out of line. The one you showed me was pretty out of date and all over the place in terms of formatting, and I would rather make an official page for it. I will follow formats to the best of my ability - Overwatch has a pretty solid one in terms of cohesiveness and usefulness.

In the meantime I am keeping copies of what I add in a doc, so if it gets deleted I still have the chance to put it back in in some format and not lose all of my work. Thank you for the heads up and I would appreciate whatever help you have to offer but for now I will continue on my course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatClockwyrm (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Time articles

I know they aren't in a good shape, but it's poor form to basically delete an article through redirection after an AfD was closed as unanimous keep. Laurdecl ^talk 07:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: I left a talk page comment on both of those articles for a week. If you look at Talk:Tomorrow (time) and Talk:Yesterday (time), someone else endorsed the redirect in both places. Nobody replied or tried to save the article. I certainly don't go around redirecting articles that were saved at AfD normally, but Wikipedia is not a bureacracy, and if nobody can be bothered to say "hey no stop", WP:BOLD applies. People can *create* terrible articles with little bureaucracy. Deleting them can take far more time via AfD.

With regards to "not being in a good shape", that isn't why I redirected the article at all, and that's putting it lightly. Did you read my talk page comments? I bothered to actually read the references. I am doing my part to make Wikipedia better. Those articles are complete bollocks as they stand. I'll note that you full-reverted me rather than letting this edit stand, which removed flagrantly wrong/terrible material. Do you actually approve of that material? Do you think it should be kept (if the article is kept)? Beacuse even if the articles are kept, it should be thrown in the garbage, and started again.

Anyway, the quality problems *still* aren't why I redirected. It's the same thing as I said on Draft talk:Answer. I don't think a good article can be written - or to the extent that it can be, it is the article day. You can talk about a day; you can talk about June 15; you can't really talk about the next day, last Wednesday, yesterday, whatever in any fashion that isn't just repeating content from day.

Sometimes people get annoyed at obviously absurd hypotheticals, but I think they get the point across. There is *some* line where everybody agrees an article can't be written, even if you hired a team of researchers to spend a year writing the article. Zzyhjkle or whatever. Then there's articles that *could* be written, but would be basically a single line, like a random home in a city - there might be public city hall records about when it was built and the zoning for the area, but that's it. Same for many minor streets. Eventually you get to the level of neighborhoods, or notable homes, or state roads, and then a good article can be written. This isn't controversial that I have to explain this, right? That there is SOME threshold, somewhere, over what can have an article that isn't repetition of other material?

So... I suppose my question for you is, do you approve of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Saying "no" is perfectly legit, mind, there's an alternate timeline where Wikipedia & Wiktionary are one entity, and there's vocabulary webpages mixed into Wikipedia, along with pages that are a little bit of both. (Although you probably should have said as much in the "Answer" debate.) But for people like me who think that it is, I can't see how Tommorow or Yesterday or Answer are anything more than dictionary definitions + random blather of finding the use of the words. This isn't something fixable; even if an eccentric millionaire DID hire that team of researchers, they wouldn't be able to create a sensible article. Read my talk page comments on Tomorrow & Yesterday; I did some good faith thinking about this and research, and there isn't an article to write. SnowFire (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the article at Answer is a completely different topic. I only created it because it was a mix of a law article and a definition, so I split the two. Now, I probably wouldn't even have !voted keep at an AfD, but I opposed the RM because it was the completely wrong venue for a deletion request. I still believe the article had potential, after seeing Question. You could make a case that article is a DICDEF, but would you? Indeed, the article might at one point have read: "A question is a request for information", and you would make the case that it cannot be expanded; look at it now. In fact, most of that article is literally random blather about the use of the word. About the time articles, they may well be dictionary definitions, but one of them survived AfD unanimously, and it's not right to delete it single-handedly. Would you like it if you !voted keep at an AfD, and the article was kept, only to find out that someone had redirected it years later based on their own interpretation of policy? Those who participated at least deserve a chance to say why they believed the article should be kept. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 23:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: The answer, as usual, is "it depends." There are absolutely times where an article has survived AfD but is then redirected as part of a reorganization scheme, or due to changing circumstances. There are also times where someone who's lost at AfD is bitter and tries to circumvent it via surprise redirection / merge. I obviously don't approve of the latter, but the former is respectable.

If the article "Question" had solely been a single line, then it could have been redirected until someone was willing to put the effort in to write a real article. There's no shame in that, and it's not uncommon. Very short articles are merged to a section somewhere else, or long sections are split into their own article. And honestly, I'd be in favor of deleting / merging "Question" as well, but I suspect I would lose at AfD, so whatever, I can accept when consensus is against me.

You didn't answer my questions. Do you approve of the content you "put back" in your Yesterday revert? And do you agree with the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? I'll add a third question: do you have any personal interest in expanding / fixing the yesterday/tomorrow articles? SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think the state of an article is related to its notability or worthiness for inclusion, you are completely wrong. The arguments you make about both Answer and the time articles resemble WP:ASZ and WP:UGLY.

If you respected consensus as you say, then you would not have redirected those articles. Of course I agree with WP:DICDEF, but you seem to think an article on a word must be a dictionary definition, which is wrong. Whether I approve of the content I reverted to makes no difference to you going against consensus. Laurdecl ^talk 07:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sheesh. Laurdecl, why are you interpreting me in the most hostile manner possible that makes me appear an idiot? You are dueling with a straw man. Read what I wrote before: "The quality problems *still* aren't why I redirected. It's the same thing as I said on Draft talk:Answer. I don't think a good article can be written." The comment on article quality was a reference to something else - the ability to merge short--but-notable-topics, and split off long-sections into articles.

If not completely obvious, I am *trying* to move forward and put these articles in a better state so that there can be a good article there. Yes, I was trying to work with you! But you refuse to discuss this edit or the article quality at all. Do you not care if the article is nonsense or not? If you want the article kept, don't you want it to be a useful article? I take it you have no interest in the article itself and are just being hostile to me after the Answer RM. I guess we'll have to go to AFD for a new consensus to solve this after all, something I'd really prefer to avoid. SnowFire (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Max Eiselen

Good catch. I overlooked the other mention of his parents. Thanks! Franzboas (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Offline, or off page at least

Hi. re Menorca/Minorca you said "Maybe things will be different in 10 years. SnowFire (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)" It's now 4 years. As you've just commented there, perhaps you might do your own search now on GNews 2013-2017 and see what % you get for each spelling over those 4 years. All the best In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Quite possibly! I didn't take a proper look at the merits of the case, and heck, my original opposes were "weak" opposes. I just think the procedure was bizarre in this case (not your fault at all), that the re-opened RM was closed so quickly for reasons that escape me, and it had to be dragged to Move Review. SnowFire (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I can't help thinking if the bytes spent by everyone talking about it were simply used to click GNews results might all be avoided. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

CNN August 31, 2017 CNN August 16, 2013 In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence

On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that television showings and online streaming of the documentary Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence were stopped after a blogger discredited its key photograph ? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Senjō no Valkyria 3

This is exactly what I was afraid of. It was not my intent to be disruptive, and I intended to come at this at a new angle that explained the situation in full. That it was completely ignored in favor of the previous requests, and not because of the reasons given, is why I had left Wikipedia in the first place. It's not that I "disagree" with the naming policies, it's that there is a clear failing with them that does not adequately cover articles like Senjō no Valkyria 3. Attempting to change the policy itself over a specific detail that is really only brought up by articles like this is far less productive than simply figuring out how to deal with the few articles like this that you have. Despatche (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Despatche: I respect that you make your proposals in good faith. There comes a time, however, where further debate is pointless until and unless you are bringing something new to the table. You have been told that, despite your own feelings on this, yes, WP:OFFICIAL does apply. Saying "there is a clear failing with them" means that yes, you do "disagree" with the policies. You can't say that we just don't understand the policy, or that it doesn't apply here. It totally does, and it entirely contradicts your point, which is why you perceive it as a "failing". Your disagreement is with the policy, not the other editors who are correctly informing you that the policy diverges from your preferences. I don't know how I can lay it out any clearer. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not disagreeing with the policies. I'm pointing out that the policies, for the most part, do not actually cover this situation, and that either the policies or the specific articles have to make up for it. Since this doesn't happen terribly often, it makes more sense to have the articles do this, for right now. If this was happening to huge amounts of articles, I'd be on the policy pages right now asking for addendums and so forth.

It's very important to note that the video game specific guidelines do cover this specific situation, and whoever wrote them probably ran into the same problem I did. At the same time, the guidelines seem to be directly at odds with other parts of the major policies. Really important question here: if the policies override any lesser guidelines for specific projects, why even write project guidelines that are directly at odds with major policies?

My move request was about all of these things. When I want to invoke IAR, it's usually because of conflicts like the above. My opinions on the policies or guidelines themselves are completely irrelevant. Despatche (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Despatche: I was trying to assume some basic Wikipedia policy knowledge above by assuming disagreement rather than ignorance. I was apparently in error. If you think that "the policies do not actually cover this situation", then you either don't understand the policies or you don't understand the situation. They do. It's a very, very direct case of WP:COMMONNAME, which is a project-wide policy, not a lesser specific project policy, and something like the VC3 article is exactly what they're talking about. This is what you were told the last 3 RMs, and I can't comprehend what exactly has "changed" now in your latest RM. Nothing, as best I can tell.

For your other comments... okay, side issue. Wikipedia bureaucracy is big and complicated, so there's no shame in not knowing or understanding the giant maze of intersecting policies and interpretations. That said, have you ever heard someone else talk about a field you really know a lot about, and they know the terms, but put them together all backward and crazy, betraying that they only know just enough to get them into trouble? Lawyers who wince upon hearing references to fancy legal terms used in not-quite-the-right-way, aeronautical engineers hearing people misunderstand how planes work, etc. Your understanding of the "exceptions" you cite (IPod, Command & Conquer, etc.) and project policies is the same thing. I am not trying to rag on you, I am trying to help you out, but: you need to take a step back and unlearn what you have learned, because it's incorrect. (I don't mean "wrong", per my original comment it's fine to DISAGREE, but I mean "these cases aren't what you think they are.") If you are truly interested in learning, I would be happy to try to explain what's actually going on, but you need to have some humility first. That means accepting that some policies in fact do what everyone else tells you they do, not what you think they do. Are you interested, or not? SnowFire (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

But they don't. Please read the move requests in full, then read the policies and guidelines I mentioned very carefully. The previous RMs never really talked about any of this.

If you're going to accuse me of "being mistaken", I'm going to accuse you of the same. Are you telling me that I was right to assume bad faith from the start? Do you ever stop to think that "highly experienced editors" aren't taking certain things for granted? Despatche (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Despatche: Yes, I read your RM. You aren't being responsive to what you have been told repeatedly. "COMMONNAME doesn't work here; none of the examples listed on that page actually cover this example. OFFICIALNAME and USEENGLISH don't really work here either;" -- this is not the case, okay? This kind of page is EXACTLY what these three policies are set up for. More generally, Wikipedia is not some kind of contract court where your hypothetical nitpicks to the policies would even matter. WP:CONSENSUS is king. If everyone else "thinks" these policies apply, then they apply. It doesn't matter how "right" you are.

I'll give you an analogy. A town has law 123A on the books. Jane Doe thinks that law 123A only forbids theft on Sundays. Everyone else - the newspapers, the police, the courts - think law 123A forbids theft all the time. It doesn't matter how brilliant Jane's argument is that the law really only forbids theft on Sundays, or hell, even if she's "correct." If Jane decides to go steal from a store on Saturday, she's gonna get arrested. At best, Jane needs to go argue that the law should be clarified one way or the other to settle the one-sided "dispute."

So fine. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else, however, has been wrong three separate times, and you're stretching their patience and attention. Let us all be wrong in peace. SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm "not being responsive" because I'm telling you that you're mistaken. COMMONNAME does not work here, this isn't my opinion. If you read COMMONNAME in full, you'll notice that it doesn't actually cover situations like Valkyria 3 at all, and there's still the conflict with the specific video game guidelines. If something like Valkyria 3 is exactly what COMMONNAME was created to solve (which is laughable even by itself), then why is COMMONNAME completely lacking anything on it?

I know you're not really reading these move requests because you keep saying "this is the same thing for the fourth time". It's not, at all. If you actually read the last three move requests, none of them actually talk about problems with the policy. What they do talk about is my personal dissatisfaction with the policy, which always has been and always will be irrelevant. I was angry. A large part of why I left was because I was angry. I came back because I wanted to do something different.

Here, I'm trying to bring up actual problems with the policy, and I'm trying to be as civil as I can about it. When people automatically default to applying policy instead of asking themselves whether the policy actually checks out for a given situation, that's not a good thing. That's not "everyone being wrong", that's people taking things for granted, which happens all the time and which I had been doing up until now. There's nothing "clever" about what I'm asking here; here is a problem, and I'm trying to figure out what's going on with it. And please don't ask me to take it up with policy talk again, I've already explained why that isn't such a great idea.

But I don't think this is going to pan out so nicely. That "analogy" of yours pretty clearly shows what you think of me; you berating me because I apparently "just disagree" with the policy and am apparently trying to be "disruptive", is not helping at all and is a lot of bad faith on your part. You're not being "blunt". You're being needlessly aggressive and taking overly immense issue with the idea that the policies might not actually be what you think they are. There's a lot more to this topic than you trying to label me as someone who simply dislikes how the place is run. If it was that simple, I wouldn't be here, like so many who stay away from Wikipedia. Despatche (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Despatche: - I have read your move requests. You either don't agree with, or don't understand, WP:COMMMONNAME. As long as our sources are like https://www.polygon.com/2014/1/2/5266156/valkyria-chronicles-3-english-fan-translation-now-available https://kotaku.com/5957365/valkyria-chronicles-3-is-the-best-game-of-the-series , COMMONNAME is saying that Wikipedia should use the title the sources use. There are other reasons to ignore or supersede COMMONNAME, ranging from using natural disambiguation, to technical limitations, to worries about neutrality. But COMMONNAME is a flat reason against your move request. You can show that good English language sources actually usually use the untranslated Japanese title; you can argue that another criterion is more important. But your claim that COMMONNAME doesn't apply is incorrect. It does, and has for many many many other translated titles of video games / film / etc. I am not making this up. I am telling you this as a strictly factual comment about how many requested moves have been adjudicated in the past.

I think this conversation has reached the limit of its effectiveness. I will offer the following three suggestions of ways to move forward:

• If you think there are "actual problems with the policy", then please take that up on the policy pages, such as Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. You can ask that the policy be modified to fix the problems you've identified with them.
• If you think I'm totally wrong for closing the Valkyria move request early but the policy is fine, I offer two suggestions:

• If you can find some other editor in good standing to endorse your move request, go for it and reopen the MR with my blessing. I closed it partially because it was unanimously voted down before, and there ARE standards in place to stop time-wasting move requests. If you can find a second, then it isn't unanimous. Ask on the talk page?
• If you can't find another editor to endorse your move request but still think I'm wrong, you can go to Wikipedia:Move review and request my closure be overturned.

SnowFire (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating myself. Reopening this thing so long after the fact is going to do no good when people like you police it. You're too concerned with taking COMMONNAME and other policies for granted, instead of actually reading them and understanding what they mean. You keep ignoring that the video game specific guidelines, which have been around forever, have a point specifically for this move request; you won't even tell me as much as "well, the major policies clearly override those" (I actually have no idea and I clearly cannot trust you to tell me the truth), you just flat ignore it like I'm not saying it over and over again. You can keep telling me that you're reading these move requests, but every single other sentence you type clearly says otherwise.

Most importantly, you might want to do something about the fact that your sources are using a 3 instead of a III (as the article does now), if this means so much to you. I don't think you actually will, I really truly don't, and that's probably going to be the thing that really would show you what I'm trying to say. But noone is going to actually see it, or care that they should. Despatche (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Despatche: I asked you before if you wanted to learn how naming on Wikipedia ACTUALLY works. You declined.

Not sure why I'm bothering since you can't trust me, but the really short version in response to what happens when side-wide policies conflict with Wikiproject policies: it goes legal policies > consensus > site-wide policies > wikiproject guidelines. Policies only reflect how people already think, and are useful shorthand for "X, because Y." Any local consensus can potentially overturn a policy (read: things like the result of a requested move). So the good news is that you can "beat" even policies that contradict your MR, the bad news is that all of those failed move requests amount to a lot of consensus against you, from editors other than myself. Wikiproject guidelines are supposed to only clarify as to how the site-wide policies interact with a specific problem domain. If there IS a conflict, usually the site-wide policies "win", unless the local consensus (higher on the totem pole) or a lawyer says otherwise. If you don't trust me, feel free to ask the same question elsewhere.

Taking off my closer cap, I would say that you've misinterpreted the admonition against fannames, or at least have a different preference than everyone else. What it's talking about isn't "COMMONNAME is irrelevant." It means that if, say, there's a choice between TITLE (video game) and TITLE: UNOFFICIAL SUBTITLE, probably don't use the unofficial subtitle. COMMONNAME is still fine if everyone agrees on a term, especially a term in translation, hence stuff like Ace Attorney Investigations 2. But... as I said above... all this pales compared to the various people voting Oppose against your proposal over the years. You don't have to trust me, trust them. As said before, you can be "right", just let us all be wrong in peace. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mosaic (murder mystery)

On 19 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mosaic (murder mystery), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steven Soderbergh's Mosaic is both a mobile app and a television miniseries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mosaic (murder mystery). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mosaic (murder mystery)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)