User talk:SkyWarrior/Archive 2

THIS IS A TALK PAGE ARCHIVE Please do NOT edit this page. If you leave a message here, I will not respond to it. Click here to return to my active talk page

there are alot of people here to write their propaganda. most argue and force their views without proof. wiki should get rid of them.

also that huge armenian genocide page is very very one sided. especially the way the article is written.

also there was a turkey-pkk conflict page, they made it turkish-kurdish conflict as if we fight each other. why? thats a propaganda go check. 10 mil kurds in turkey, many kurds live in istanbul izmir etc west of turkey. theres no fight, the terrorist organization pkk attacks turkish soldiers and they call this turkish-kurdish conflict. is that right? wiki will never be a reliable source because of that.

in that armenian genocide page i wanted to check some sources, but most of the sources are broken and doesnt lead anywhere or some lead to irrelevant links. those articles are a huge mess of propaganda. maybe wiki should only host articles that are proven and known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPA. If you do truly believe the article is one-sided, then please discuss the matter on the talk page in a civil matter. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have the energy, the time to do any of that. instead i asked you a simple question, why was that changed from turkey-pkk conflict to turkish-kurdish conflict? there is no such a conflict in turkey. anyways, this is a site where majority wants is accepted and taken as truth rather than real truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot answer that, since I don't actually follow the article. but I can say that you should read WP:NPA when you get the chance and follow my suggestion above. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article you suggested. However it did not specify to my direct question after you removed my edit. Due to this, I will ask the following, Does CNN account as a reliable source? IF POSSIBLE, please reply to me directly, if not, i will check your User page in a few days Thanks! Malistare77 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 14:50 2016-29-12 (PST)[reply]

Alright, at your request, I will respond to you on your talk (that's as direct as I can get). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Kathleen Neal Cleaver. I'm seeking to have Kathleen Cleaver become the main article page and Kathleen Neal Cleaver as a redirect page. Kathleen Cleaver is far more common, than Kathleen Neal Cleaver. Please see Google Ngram for proof. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this later. I have to do some things in real life first. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the more common name does appear to omit Neal from the name, and the majority of the sources I found appear to omit Neal as well. I'll move it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the request, Mitchumch. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi! In November 2016, there was a discussion regarding deleting the Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims article. The decision was to keep the article. In January 2017, there is again discussion to delete the article. See the article's Talk page.

Could nudge the users in question not to nuke the article as the decision has already been made to keep the article. Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, WSDavitt, since it's been two months without improvement, the fact that the article has been kept is irrelevant. The article can still be nominated for "nuking", regardless of whether it was kept 2 months ago. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was starting to drive me crazy. I had to undo his Trump Tower edit which is just insane. Maybe he is 9, or maybe he is a liar, but he is a disgrace to Wikipedia, IPs, and probably Mr.T. L3X1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Honestly I'm glad they were blocked quick (at least when I got to them); they seemed like the kind of vandal where if they weren't blocked quickly I would've just given up and let someone else deal with them. Good thing that didn't happen. Keep an eye out, though, in case they return. JudgeMR (talk to me) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JudgeRm you said if I wanted to request a change for the title of the page "Abyssinian people" I should do it here. First let me give you an example of why the title doesn't make sense for this page I am habasha, Tigirnya habasha to be exact and Tigrinyas are only found and are native to Eritrea our Ethiopians Counterparts the the Tigrayans the difference is they live in Ethiopia and we live in Eritrea that is the main difference and we are both habasha but we are not both Abyssinian, Abyssinia was used as the name of the country now called Ethiopia it was used by outsiders as name for people who come from Ethiopia but we are not Ethiopians we are Eritreans so we can not be Abyssinians. Every ethnic group in Ethiopia was considered Abyssinian therefore the title of the page is incorrect.The ethnic groups listed in the page as "Abyssinians" is not correct because Tigrinya Eritreans are not "Abyssinian" they are Eritreans but they are still listed in this page when they are not Abyssinian(Ethiopian) but what is incorrect is the title of page "Abyssinian" the tile should be Habasha that is what the Ethnic groups you listed are and what they are mainly referred to by outsiders who have knowledge about them and by Habasha people themselves. This page has always been called Habasha as far as I remember until last year. Whoever made that mistake has confused a lot of people on a non confuseing issue. We are called and mainly refered to and refer ourselves as Habasha not AByssinians so I request you change the title from "Abyssinian" to its original title before it was changed which is "Habasha" thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8414:7800:60DF:232B:C910:9CC8 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. When I said "on the talk", I meant on the article talk page. The message on my userpage is for uncontroversial moves only. Since I find this move could be controversial, I will start an RM on the article talk for you later with your message above, if that is fine by you. JudgeMR (talk to me) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok JudgeRM I am new at this so I'm not used to the editing I am the IP user and when I messaged you When I was not logged in (i forgot) i am the person who requsted to change the name of the page "Abyssinian people" name to "Habasha people" 02:44 8th January 2017

Alright, honest mistake (I kinda figured it way you anyways). I would tell you about the RM but I see that you have already commented. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE MESSAGE PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDIT - WHY DID YOU NOT RESPOND - I AM THE SAME PERSON WHO DID IT - PLEASE RESPOND - 49.149.113.205 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not required to reply to anyone; maybe because I didn't see the message, maybe simply because I don't want to reply. I honeslty have no clue what you're talking about, so please care to explain? JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

112.198.72.164 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Major party. The new country Democratic People's Republic of Robotsylvania. you shouldve done some reaearch before reverting the edit[reply]

Mr./Mrs.

The whole article about Croatian Kingdom in period of 925-1102 is croatian propaganda, which only goal is to create the feeling in world that the Croats are people that have statehood manners. In that period there is no such evidences, and the books and articles from list of reference are made when the Croats where in period of succesion from Yugoslavia, mostly of them in 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.116.48 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to just replace the entire article with your own version, and it certainly isn't an excuse to do this. I suggest you discuss this on the talk page. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the people are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1744498 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources confirming your statements, K1744498. We simply cannot put the info on the page without reliable sources. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion seems to have been lost in the move. At least, I can't find it. Can you put it back? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gorthian. The move discussion is still there, I think you're just looking at the wrong page. The talk page was moved with the article, so the move discussion is located at Talk:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (it's the last section, shouldn't be hard to find). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No accounting for my missing that! Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the move discussion I opened here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_15_January_2017. I would ask for justification for the close? I put down the logic of my opening of the request and if there was consensus to develop for it to wait, it had not developed yet. I would ask you to reopen the discussion. Casprings (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, no I will not reopen it. Long answer: there has been three RM discussions in the past month, all of them closing as either not moved or no consensus; one went to move review, where the decision was endorsed. It's time for everyone, including you Casprings, to drop the stick and wait one full month before starting a new RM. If you disagree with me, then go straight to move review or ANI or something; don't reopen the discussion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings:, myself, Bradv, and even George Ho all said this was getting out of hand. That is a consensus for a speedy close, and when the immediate renomination is obviously disruptive, a good admin who came across the debacle could have closed before any objections had been registered, IMO. A WP:TROUT for you; JudgeRM was absolutely correct in his/her actions. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the River Forest High School website I have a reference but the thing is it isn't on a website it is something I know personally what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth4515 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Darth4515. If you don't have a reference, you can't add it. Personal observation amounts to nothing here on Wikipedia, and if that's your only source of information, then you can't add it (see WP:OR). You could try to find reliable sources (either online or in print), but if you can't, then you can't add the info since original research isn't allowed on wikipedia. JudgeMR (talk to me) 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to suppress the talk page redirect from Talk:John Andrew Barnes, III on moving the article? Doesn't seem right to me... but I'm always learning. Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrewa. Sometimes PageSwap (which is what I use when performing round-robins such as this) will just delete the talk page of the redirect automatically when moving, usually when the redirect that the page was swapped with didn't have a talk page to begin with, or did but had only one edit. It's an automatic thing, it's nothing I can control, and I do move all talk pages, though if a talk page is deleted, then I will usually just leave it deleted since there's really no point of having a talk page for a redirect (unless I'm missing something important). If you want, I could redirect the talk page, but it's something I don't usually do. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, after reading it over, WP:PM actually does say to redirect the talk page... I'm learning as well, it seems. Well I should fix that (and probably read more). But, yeah, it's an automatic thing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the sub heading to understand my request. Love, Shepherd. (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll look at it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it you that removed the updates to the Beezid page concerning the current status of the site? If so, why not keep the updates current? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle Readneck (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your edit was reverted by some editor because you provided an unreliable source, and violates WP:NPOV. Please read WP:RS also. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what KGirlTrucker81 said. Also, I was not the user who reverted it; that would be PigeonGuru. (Also to note, if any of the pinged persons are looking at this, the edit was added back, though more neutral and with a link to their official Facebook, though it still contained the unofficial forum site). JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company (Williams-Sonoma, Inc.) and brand (Williams-Sonoma) are two separate entities with different names, logos, website, products, number of stores, locations, executives, number of employees, and slogans. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is the parent company over 7 brands, which are referenced in the existing Williams-Sonoma article, including Pottery Barn, west elm and Rejuvenation - these three brands each have their own article. The brand (and cookware line) is independently notable with coverage that differentiates the brand from the corporate entity in these reliable sources (sited below): Yahoo Finance, Forbes, Businesswire, San Francisco Chronicle, Oprah.com. The reason for decline I have seen is naming conventions, however this rule is not enforced by other retailers, ie. Macy's Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's,_Inc. and Macy's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's. When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)). Ideally there would be some sort of disambiguation using (company), Inc. or Corporation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-launches-chocolate-collaboration-110000107.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-debuts-exclusive-tabletop-130000522.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/meggentaylor/2016/03/28/a-chefs-life-celebrity-chef-vivian-howard-launches-her-brand-on-william-sonoma-today/#2abd7bff2cd9 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160825005394/en/WILLIAMS-SONOMA-KICKS-NATIONAL-FUNDRAISING-CAMPAIGN-BENEFITING-KID http://www.sfchronicle.com/food/article/A-slew-of-smart-gadgets-for-the-high-tech-kitchen-7950010.php http://www.oprah.com/gift/Williams-Sonoma-Croissants?editors_pick_id=25904

Thank you Lmurphy1 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lmurphy1. The RM discussion was closed as not moved since Williams-Sonoma appears to be the common name. If you are asking me to follow through with the move, the short answer is no. In fact, you were the only one to support the move in the RM.

There is an option of creating a seperate article for the company alone, though if you do go that route I recommend you read our general notability guideline. Alternatively, and I don't recommend this route as it will likely be turned down, you could contest my RM close at WP:MRV, or (in about a month's time) start another RM discussion. JudgeMR (talk to me) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually write an auto biography I wrote a Page about my son who has the same first and last name as me but we have different middle names please don't take down my page about him thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drewsefolson. Simply creating an autobiography is, on its own, not a valid reason for deletion. Failure of WP:GNG and WP:BLP, which at the moment the article fails both, is. If you want your son's article to remain, then please meet the requirements listed at WP:GNG (as well as WP:N) and WP:BLP. See also WP:RS. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citation please can you take the warning off of the post we have redbull sponsorship coming in and i would really like for the big red warnign sign to be gone it might scare them off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Drewsefolson. As I have stated on your talk, your son's website is not a reliable source, which is required for removal of the template. Furthermore, I doubt that the template is going to scare off Red Bull or other sponsors; most sponsors don't really care about whether or not their client has a Wikipedia article or not, at least not enough to deny a sponsorship, so you should be fine with Red Bull and others. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drew's Mom, again, Wiki is not a marketing site.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You denied the speedy because you claimed an endorsement is a credible claim of significance. I have been unable to verify anything in the article. If you have any sources, can you add them to the article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Postcard Cathy. Sources are not needed for an A7 to be declined, only a "claim of significance," sourced or not. Per WP:A7:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines"

Since a claim of significance was stated, A7 does not apply. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I misunderstood your edit summary but my point, IMHO, is still unanswered. I can claim I am the most attractive woman in the history of the world. You've never met me, and you've never seen a picture of me. So are you going to say my claim is credible because I said it, so of course it must be true, or are you going to want to see me or get reliable sources to back up my claim? Be careful how you answer. I picked that example for a reason. If you say you would want want to see my picture or verifiable sources backing up my claim, why would you NOT want the same from Drew's MOTHER? Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CCS:

"'Credible claim of significance' is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:

a) is this reasonably plausible?

b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

So, a claim that the person is the King of Mars would satisfy b, since a person who's King of Mars would almost certainly have coverage in sources that would constitute notability, but of course it fails a, since it's not plausible. Conversely, an article describing a subject whose main claim to fame is that they've been the top of their class for the last four years would pass a, since it's quite plausible for that to be true, but not pass b, since that kind of thing is not likely to lead to notability."

Essentially, Drew passes both points a and arguably b, since having sponsorships is entirely plausible and would arguably make him notable, which makes a credible claim of significance and therefore A7 does not apply. On the other hand, your example would pass b (being the most attractive woman ever, if true, would likely cause you to be notable), but would not satisfy a since such a claim is unlikely to be plausible (no offense) since it's a matter of opinion, similar to the realm of someone claiming to be the King of Mars. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a logic point of view, I follow. From a critical analysis POV, I still have issues.Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard Cathy, I could explain further later (but not now, as I am at work). What concerns do you have with my explaination? JudgeMR (talk to me) 23:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the arbitrary break in the Daily mail RFC was simply so that users don't have to scroll down through the whole thing every time they click the edit button if they want to add something new to the bottom. I've seen this done in lots of other very long discussions, so I had decided to implement it here as well simply for convenience. Some people didn't get the idea and continued to edit in the upper section though, so not a huge success. Forgive me if the effort was inappropriate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Insertcleverphrasehere, the only reason why I removed it was because of my personal opinion of finding it useless; your explanation actually makes sense. You can add it back if you want (though if you do, add another one; the arbitration break is going to be useless by your description without it). Though if people appear to be editing above the arbitration break regardless, it would be wise to just leave it out. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think I'll just leave it now, it was an experiment based on what I've seen before, and seems to have been largely ineffective, so I'll just leave it how it is.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with editing or responding to articles.

I would like to express an opinion about the topic of moving discussion of the Year of the Rooster in the Chinese zodiac, but am unable to find how to submit a comment.

I would support renaming the article, but certainly NOT to the year of the chicken. That would be totally absurd in my opinion.

The Chinese creature for which the year is named is definitely NOT a chicken. It's a bird, true, but NOT a chicken.

It is the fenghuang, which as one of your commentators points out is gender neutral. But just like the dragon, it is a mythical character, and has no representative in real life.

The fenghuang is a magnificent, powerful bird, and is linked to female leadership. It represents the female ruler or empress, just as the dragon represents the male ruler or emperor.

Please do not make this amazing creature into a chicken. If the name is changed, it should be made the Year of the Phoenix which comes much closer to being a literal translation, and much more appropriate cross-culturally. Only trouble is, it is NOT the phoenix of Western culture since it did not arise from the ashes.

If the name is changed from Rooster, it should be changed to Phoenix, a much more appealing, appropriate and literal name in English.Twintx (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twintx. You can state your opinion on this here under the request for move section at the bottom. However, I would oppose a move to Pheonix, simply because no one (except for you) call it that. You are free to give your opinion, though I doubt you'll be successful in your goals. JudgeMR (talk to me) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then marked me opposed to a move! twintxTwintx (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to vote oppose, Twintx, then you gotta do it yourself. I cannot !vote for you. (You can place your vote here and I can then transfer it, but I cannot vote directly for you). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was strange. I reverted it with Huggle which also added a warning. Never seen that happen before. Thanks for the fix. Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm quite puzzled myself on what exactly happened. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at the talk page changing it again. Home Lander (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll leave the blocking admin a message to revoke TPA. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked. Thanks Northamerica1000. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take a second look to see what happened above. That was funny. Home Lander (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was already working on the matter when you messaged me at my talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with you, however the people who primarily wrote this article (those from rationalwiki) also have a stake in this too as they are vehemently opposed to and vandalize conservapedia. Godspeed Trump supporter 1776 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Trump supporter 1776. You must adhere to WP:NPOV in articles at all times, no exceptions. Failure to do that could result in a block. JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to live by american values will lead to you being thrown in jail! Godspeed 12:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trump supporter 1776 (talk • contribs)

Greetings,

I recently made the following edit. My concern with the original is that its lengthy structure, in which two year ranges are followed by "respectively," delays clarity, and might make some readers suspect that the first 2017 is an error for 2014 (as if Mr. Costos served two tenures as ambassador to both nations: 2013-2014 and 2014-2017). In my edited version, parenthetical year ranges after each nation interrupt the syntax, making it clear that Mr. Costos's two ambassadorships overlapped. This was not a test, but an intentional edit. Could you please let me know if something was amiss? I welcome your feedback!

BEFORE: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain and Andorra from 2013 to 2017 and 2014 to 2017, respectively.

AFTER: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain (2013 to 2017) and to Andorra (2014 to 2017).

Thanks, TeiseiMG (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG[reply]

Hello TeiseiMG, I was using a bot when I reverted your edit when I should've manually reverted and left a message.

With that said, the original flows better and is preferable; the edit you made doesn't flow as well. The change isn't needed, nor encouraged. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be specific about what makes the original flow better? Flow is largely a matter of taste, but there are concrete differences between these versions: my edit requires less space, and resolves the confusion of year ranges by hewing each range to the nation it applies to, while mimicking the punctuation style used for year ranges elsewhere on the site, such as for lifespans (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Taylor).

TeiseiMG (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG[reply]

The current page for Emmett Till--a fourteen-year-old boy whose murder helped fuel the American Civil Rights movement--currently leads off with an inappropriate and only marginally accurate statement that he allegedly "flirted with a white woman." This is bad for the following reasons: 1) It ascribes fault to Till, rather than ascribing fault to his murderers (or the white woman who recent scholarship has proven lied under oath). 2) It fails to capture the historical significance of Till's murder. I tried changing "he allegedly flirted with a white woman" to "the perpetrators of his murder were never brought to justice." This is an accurate statement that every single scholar of Till--along with the murderers themselves, who admitted guilt after a rigged trial--support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanonFitzpatrick (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShanonFitzpatrick. Please get consensus on the talk page before making such a change as you did. Furthermore, saying that the "perpetrators... were never brought to justice" isn't exactly neutral, or at least less neutral than what is previously (aka currently) was (is). Details on the perpetrators are later in the lead anyways, so your edit is pointless imo. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is "pointless" in your opinion? What is pointless about removing the victim-blaming "he (allegedly) flirted with a white woman" clause from the first sentence when it is WIDELY SOURCED (including through admission by the woman herself, as I cited) that this "white woman" LIED UNDER OATH about her encounter? Furthermore, saying that "none of the perpetrators were brought to justice" is NOT UNOBJECTIVE. They were tried in a "Jim Crow" legal system that repeatedly and systematically excluded black jury members and refused to persecute white perpetrators of murder. There is no lack of historical or popular consensus on this assertion. As the wiki article later explains, with appropriate citations, the murderers confessed after they got off scot-free, and the "white woman" (Carol Bryant) was NEVER PROSECUTED. UPDATE: Since you are reverting my edits--after I have posted ample support on the talk page--I am submitting a request for dispute arbitration. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I saw, will comment on it later. JudgeRM (talk to me) 05:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your Trump disambiguation closure.

Read this... There is, in fact, no rule that says a closing editor has to be an admin, so the only argument against the closure is whether it was mere vote-counting. But that's an issue for the move review discussion, if you would like to start one. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Read this...(WP:RMNAC) Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved.

Thank you. Lakeshake (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly read WP:RMNAC, Lakeshake, apparently more closely than you. The page states that non-admins should be cautious when closing contentious debates, but they're not banned from it. The page also clearly states that "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure".

See also this discussion here, where consensus explicitly states that you cannot revert a closure of a discussion for the simple reason of the closure not being an admin. Age is also not a reason to revert a closure (also since when is 17 considered a "child"?)

Furthermore, since you participated in the discussion, you were involved, so you shouldn't have reverted the closure in the first place.

In short, no I will not reopen the RM for the simple reason being that I'm not an admin. If you still disagree with my closure then here's the link to move review. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	About my case Fanny46
	Look dude i have no intentions in doing anything bad i just like to add cause i know more thing than Snowflake91,Karpich and Kante4 and i like to give them a warning not a threat to stop deleting my edits i asked them to stop doing that but they did not listen to me so now what's going to happen? Fanny46 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny46, you are not allowed to remove talk page sections that someone else has written. Period. If you continue to do this, you could risk getting blocked. Same thing could happen if you continue the threats and edit warring. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<reply redacted>

Hey listen, i apologize for adding too many sources on Milo Yiannopoulos. EntertheNinja (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fine. You're new, you're going to make mistakes. Don't sweat it. Just don't do it again. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) EntertheNinja (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And listen, i apologize for copying your userpage. It was a horrible mistake. I'm new here. EntertheNinja (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Don't do it again. Remember, don't copy anyone. Period. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you recently reverted a change to Owler. Have you taken a look at the history of that page, its talk page, and Mgc5256's user-talk page? 2620:0:1000:1601:48EC:9A93:5902:46A5 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. I didn't need to, though, for me to revert your edit. Twitter is not a reliable source in this instance and you shouldn't post emails to articles. Don't add the section again without 1) providing a reliable source confirming the statements, and 2) without the email excerpt (and maybe reword it a little to make it a bit more neutral). JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If the fact in question is that the company is accused of spam (and they are), aren't the accusations themselves a reliable source that such accusations exist? What's more, two tweets in particular^[1][2] cite direct evidence of spam practices. Is there a better way to refer to that evidence?

While we're on the subject, what about Reddit topics like this one? 2620:0:1000:1601:75FD:81A5:AB3A:DEF7 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources provided
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References ^ @aheckler (10 December 2014). "Owler spam on Twitter" (Tweet) – via Twitter. ^ @ultimape (16 October 2015). "Owler has been attacking twitter (and linkedin)" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Tweets by random individuals can't be used as reliable sources; only those by the article subject themselves, and only to confirm a statement about themselves. Same thing with Reddit, and every other social media site. JudgeRM (talk to me) 11:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: February 2017 Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Panzer-Abteilung 40. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, he started it, mocking me for not knowing German, all because he can't accept edits to "HIS" article. Why don't you spank him too? All I'm trying to do is be helpful ... but I won't stand for his type of self-righteousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nouveau-business (2016)[1]
# Coat of many colours
# Homeless World
# Mr Big Man
# Reasons
# Deep Sea
# To Whom it may concern
# Mr Cock
# Coat of many colours (Acoustic)
# Mr Big Man ( Acoustic)
# Deep sea (Acoustic)
# Mr Cock (Acoustic)

Sorry, but I can't help you when it comes to wikitables (I'm inexperienced as well). Try asking at the Teahouse or someone else with more knowledge of this stuff than me. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit summary. 178.42.217.43 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please see my edit summary (probably should've used it in the first revert, but oh well). JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on your signature which links to your userpage, and I noticed the page says "formally" instead of "formerly". I just thought I'd mention it. Master of Time (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, you're right. I'm usually cautious when it comes to spelling. Thanks for letting me know. SkyWarrior 19:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of Captured by Robots wishes page removed. Please verify the fact of ownership of Captured by Robots by emailing him via the webpage link on the capturedbyrobots wiki. He will respond to you via said email. He wants it removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF7F:BAF0:EDD6:DBA:7A9B:3ED2 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. We simply will not remove the article for the simple reason of the subject wanting it removed. It can be deleted for other reasons, but "subject of article wanting it deleted" is not a valid reason for deletion. SkyWarrior 21:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand you declare you will not remove the article for the simple reason of the subject wanting it removed. Let's go ahead and delete it for the other reasons you mentioned, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF7F:BAF0:EDD6:DBA:7A9B:3ED2 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a valid reason (a specific one, see WP:DELETION on valid reasons for deletion). In the meantime, I have emailed the subject at your request and waiting on a reply. I will be offline for a little bit so I might not get to any further inquiries you have for me. SkyWarrior 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some socks disturbing, so i want to reopen the page and want to adding discussions,its for feature reference,please allow me 9````0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamepriority (talk • contribs) 21:05 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jamiepriority. Since you are the person who closed the AfD, you are technically allowed to reopen it. However, you didn't file the AfD correctly, and thus it's nominator for speedy deletion per G6, so I wouldn't suggest reopening the discussion. SkyWarrior 21:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SkyWarrior

Congrats on your great work relisting so many RMs.

I just noticed that when closing or relisting RMs (e,g. [1], [2]), you are using a sig which displays as "JudgeRM" rather than you actual user ID.

This is confusing, because the name which appears on the rendered page is not the name which appears in the page history. WP:SIG doesn't directly forbid this, but WP:SIGPROB does frown on it. To help other editors, please can you ensure that whatever sig you use includes the actual username which is making the post?

I would also urge you to consider whether including the title "JudgeRM" in your sig is appropriate when posting at RMs. It conveys the impression that you have some special community-approved role in respect of RM discussions, which as far as I can see is not the case. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrownHairedGirl. Thanks for your concern. You have indeed missed something: a request at WP:USURP. My username was originally JudgeRM (as is told on both my userpage and the message at the very top of this page). I forgot the exact date my USURP request was carried out but it was after both of those edits you linked to. My current signature follows WP:SIG (hopefully), and if you look at my recent edits at RMs, you will see that I use my current signature.

Also, that stigma of having "some special community-approved role in respect of RM discussions" was one of the reasons why I changed my username in the first place; I didn't want to have that stigma. SkyWarrior 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, is the version here the new one? It looks fine.

Thanks for clarifying that, and for changing the username. I hadn't realised that the name change was recent.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS there's an RM I opened which is now several days into backlog. If you have a few spare minutes, would you like to take a look at Talk:French overseas departments and territories#Requested_move_30_January_2017 and see if you think you can close it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, BrownHairedGirl, that looks like a pretty clear cut support for a move to me. You said you'll handle the categories, or at least part of it, correct? If so, then please do that, and please correct me if I'm wrong or need to do anything else. SkyWarrior 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Great to have that done.

Yes, I will look after the categories, and will check the other bits. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. SkyWarrior 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a total lack of response be taken as lack of controversy, and OK to close as moved, as if it had been listed as a technical request? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I suppose so, but it depends. I usually do relist undiscussed RMs if no one has participated in them for the sake of, well, if someone does end up participate in them. I could start closing undiscussed moves as move instead of relisting, but there's really nothing against doing that. SkyWarrior 03:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm assuming you're referring to this relisting. In this instance, you proposed two options technically, and by the looks of recent RMs, some people are preferring the second (with a dash) option, so relisting in this instance makes sense, in my opinion. SkyWarrior 03:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good point. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a RM recently and another one 7 days ago. This should not be re-litigated every week. At least give it a few weeks. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris H of New York, please provide a link to the "other RM" you are claiming to have closed; the section started by Lakeshake at Talk:Trump is not another RM. Please stop edit warring to carry out a consensus that does not exist; please go to WP:MRV if you wish to contest the current consensus. SkyWarrior 03:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See where I closed it.

I direct you to undo your edit warring of a decision. This will show you are ethical and not edit warring. Thank you. You may see my talk page where I am taking the high road. Do not take advantage of this because it shows poor Wikipedia behaviour and poor character. Thank you again. Chris H of New York (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before, Chris H of New York, this is the current consensus, which is, well, no consensus. this discussion is not, and is certainly not an RM discussion. Lakeshake has already been directed to WP:MRV, and I suggest you go there as well to contest the current consensus instead of edit warring to override a consensus you don't like. SkyWarrior 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Now, there are consensus to move the page. Could you move it ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. SkyWarrior 17:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have instead decided to relist the discussion instead of closing it, since the previous RM closed as move to the current title only 6 days before your RM was filed. SkyWarrior 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after 8 days, there are a consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will have another look. SkyWarrior 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor at Fifty Shades Darker seems to be section blanking again despite your kind warning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Watching the page now. SkyWarrior 19:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi on Jennifer Hudson's page, It use to have a Paragraph about how Donald Trump helped Jennifer when her family was slain. It has since been removed. I think that it shows the President in a positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennymo13 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kennymo13. All info on articles, especially on BLPs, must be reliably sourced; otherwise, it has to be removed. With BLPs, there are no exceptions to this. The claim also appears a bit WP:UNDUE, especially in the lead. SkyWarrior 19:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and was wondering. Istandwiththesilent (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Istandwiththesilent, I can teach you the ways of how I make my signature appear how it does.

First off, go to your preferences. There will be a section there asking to change your signature if you want to. Click the button that says "Treat the above as wiki markup". From there, type in the wiki markup code (no more than 255 characters, though) and click save at the bottom.

My signature's markup looks like this: [[User:SkyWarrior|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:forestgreen">''Sky''</span>]][[User talk:SkyWarrior|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:forestgreen">''Warrior''</span>]]

If you would like your signature to be custom like mine, I can assist you in doing that (but don't copy my signature, please); alternatively, you can try it yourself, but read WP:SIG#CustomSig first if you decide to go that route. SkyWarrior 04:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Istandwiththesilent 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istandwiththesilent (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi, Can you please help me for editing my page so that it could follow the wikipedia policis and guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptamonoo90 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it later. SkyWarrior 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWarrior, you reverted an edit of mine where I had included a mini-biography (wikilink to person's name, DOB-DOD plus professions) in a category page. viz: Hermann Burmeister (1807-1892), zoologist, entomologist, herpetologist, and botanist.

I did this because there is an ambiguity with the name Burmeister - in this case there are two German entomologists. Given that the authority for a taxonomic name only ever refers to a surname and a date (eg Burmeister, 1839), I thought the best way to resolve this would be to put a clear and brief mini-biography to advise users of this Category page exactly who was being referred to.

I was following someone else's lead and found it very useful at the time, and adopted it here and other Category:Taxa named by ... pages that I have created.

Is there a better way to resolve these ubiquitous ambiguities?

John Tann (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Tann. Let me answer that for you.

WP:CATEGORY states the following:

Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it should contain, how they should be subcategorized, and so on.

I interpret that statement as the following: a description is not needed, except in cases where the reader wouldn't be able to tell what the category's topic is. If the category topic is clear and obvious, then a description is not needed, though if you want to add one, then you can. If you do decide to write a description, however, then at least write in in complete sentences; I've made an example of what should be done at Category:Taxa named by Hermann Burmeister; as stated, that is an example, it doesn't have to be word-for-word like that (though I recommend it be something similar), and, personally, if the category topic is clear, I'd just not put a description in the first place. SkyWarrior 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sky

I'll take on board your need for complete sentences, though I will add a bit more than what is already in the title of the category. My reading of the instructions at WP:CATEGORY is that descriptions are encouraged:

This description, not the category's name, defines the proper content of the category. Do not leave future editors to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the category. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others, especially if they are less familiar with the subject.

As both a reader and an editor, knowing quickly who is the person in the title of the category is of prime importance. For those people describing taxa, information about when they were alive and their field of interest is key to establishing them as the correct authority for a taxa, and hence defines the proper content of the category.

WP:CATEGORY also encourages links to Wikipedia pages and sister projects:

The description can also contain links to other Wikipedia pages, in particular to other related categories which do not appear directly as subcategories or parent categories, and to relevant categories at sister projects, such as Commons.

Giving readers the information they need makes a lot of sense to me, as useful descriptions of more obscure people who describe taxa may be best on Wikispecies rather than elsewhere.

After re-reading the advice in WP:CATEGORY, I am convinced that clear information about people who name taxa should be included in the Category page. I have edited the page on Category:Taxa named by Hermann Burmeister to reflect that. John Tann (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, John Tann, you appear to have overlooked this sentence: "The category description should make direct statements about the criteria by which pages should be selected for inclusion in (or exclusion from) the category". Keywords here are in bold. Essentially, your description do not give a direct statement about the criteria, which is taxa named by [person]. At least that part should be added to the description, preferably at the beginning. I've made another example at the Category page in dispute here, as well as another one, pretty much a combination of mine and your descriptions. It's very minimalist but I think it will suffice. SkyWarrior 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky, thanks for persisting. There are a lot of these pages, so it is probably important to spend some time getting this in a workable form.

I have re-worked the description (again) to include when the person was alive - this is important for confirming authority dates quickly. I have also re-arranged the wording so that it includes the phrase taxa named by [person] to reflect the heading, and added their fields of interest as nouns after the person's name and dates, which in my view, reads more clearly. Putting someone's interest, achievements or profession before their name is certainly done for titles - eg President Gorbachev, or Doctor Jekyll, but sounds a bit quaint for general use: eg botanist Joseph Banks cf Joseph Banks, a botanist. John Tann (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we reopen and relist the RM on Belle's Magical World... there are some relevant issues not yet raised, and no consensus yet achieved. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to be quite honest, that was probably not my wisest RM close, and I'm honestly not surprised someone came and asked this. I'll relist for one more week. SkyWarrior 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I wanted to have a picture for Joey King's wiki page but the edit was removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami7em (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sami7em. All images on Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) must be free to use, that is not copyrighted. The image that you added is of questionable copyright, since it appears you just downloaded it from imdB and posted it to Wikimedia; this is not allowed, since you don't own the image and there is no indication that you got permission to use the image. Please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, which states that most images uploaded to the Internet are not allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia/Wikipedia, and unless you can prove otherwise, I don't think your image qualifies for the exceptions listed. SkyWarrior 20:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that the page was changed so quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedks (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:RecentChanges is a thing that exists. I was browsing it, saw your edit, and then did what I did. Simple as that, Nedks. SkyWarrior 15:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please add 2016 Asia Cup (T20 format), under achievements paragraph for MS Dhoni page. ^[1]

Htwo0 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)htwo0[reply]

 Not done. I'm not exactly finding an achievements section to begin with. Maybe I'm missing something, but it may be best to put up an edit request on the talk page. SkyWarrior 17:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know the final decision as I am eager myself to create a new sub heading and put the Ruby "AWARD" myself. I'd like the other major editors opinion too, so we can reach a unanimous decision. The Ruby "Play Button" is not even shaped as a Play Button, so it just deserves another category instead. Thanks. Yes, I'll sign it. Aaryan33056 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aaryan33056. There is no "final decision" as far as I'm aware; besides, as is is fine for now imo. SkyWarrior 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for approving the move of Joaquín Guzmán to Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán. The article still remains the same, however. Does this have to be done manually or will it be taken care of by a bot later today? Thanks again, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind, just saw you put a request for it! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it has to be done manually, and by an admin. Now's the exciting part. SkyWarrior 21:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to complain too much, but there was actual consensus for moving the page Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and my guess is that there would have been a month ago. I understand your concern about too many move request, but I would ask that you read the arguments of other users in the future. My move request, both now and 1 month ago, was about grammar. When framed in those terms, there was good reason to believe that it could gain consensus. I would just ask you have a little more respect of other editors opinions.Casprings (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still standing by my moratorium proposal, because that many RMs in so short of a time, for whatever reason, uncontroversial or not, is outrageous. I'll keep in mind what you say, but that won't change my position on this situation. SkyWarrior 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has now gone its natural course. I doubt you will see another move proposal for awhile now. Given that there was clear concensus to move the page, I am lost as to what is outrageous.Casprings (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, alright. Say what you want, but if there is another move proposal then I'm going to actively advocate a moratorium, if the current one fails in the first place. SkyWarrior 02:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your comment on the Pingu page a while ago saying "turns out we've been lied to this entire time; it really is "nug nug". I just wanted to say thanks for putting up the good fight! I originally found that out to my surprise and edited the page, and it's become a bit of a running joke with some mates at work for me to constantly keep having to change it back even though most people when they edit it leave the original source and the followup that it's written noot noot in popular culture. (Which was a compromise someone else added.) Great to have you on my side! :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.202 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love is defind as a strong feeling you have for something and for a person. Love in human is like a person who like a flower in a eye of a man. If a man love a woman, he will trust her very well and he will keep her happy, smile nd give her joy in all way. When that woman feel happy then sex will come in. Love is a strong thing to a man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngkeys (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please move John Lewis Smith, Jr. to John Lewis Smith Jr. without the comma to comply with MOS:JR. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]