User talk:162 etc.

Welcome!

Hi 162 etc.! I noticedyour contributionsand wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipediapage covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages ontalk pagesby typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!Kj cheetham(talk)23:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Moves and redirects

Thank you for, I hope you are enjoying editing on Wikipedia. When you move/rename articles, please be mindful of double redirects or navboxes at the bottom of articles. The navboxes will need to be updated too with the new link for the article, so that the article appears in bold in the navbox when on the article page. I've updated a few navboxes, but I'm sure there are more. Best regardsPjposullivan(talk)16:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And while we're discussing redirects, linking directly to one is acceptable in the run of articles. SeeWP:NOTBROKENfor additional details.Walter Görlitz(talk)21:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, when it comes toIt Is Well with My Soul/It Is Well,I thought about making the dab page there, but ended up leaving the primary redirect.162 etc.(talk)21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editorsassume good faithwhile interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do atList of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population.Here is Wikipedia'swelcome page,and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia!Thank you very much!It's rose gold!(T?)19:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RoseGold1250:I certainly would assume that good faith motivated your revert; however, I believe it is in error. The deleted tables do not belong in an article namedList of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population,a list should be a list. I invite you to join me atTalk:List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by populationto discuss.162 etc.(talk)19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(single album)

16:17, 24 May 2021 diff hist +288‎ Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ‎ →‎Uncontroversial technical requests current 16:14, 24 May 2021 diff hist +73‎ Spring ‎ →‎Albums and EPs current 16:13, 24 May 2021 diff hist +87‎ N Talk:Spring (Park Bom single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Spring (Park Bom single album) to Talk:Spring (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Spring current Tag: New redirect 16:13, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:Spring (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Spring (Park Bom single album) to Talk:Spring (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Spring current 16:13, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Spring (Park Bom single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Spring (Park Bom single album) to Spring (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Spring 16:08, 24 May 2021 diff hist +17‎ Power ‎ →‎Albums current 16:07, 24 May 2021 diff hist −6‎ Power (B.A.P EP) ‎ ←Changed redirect target from Power (B.A.P single album) to Power (single album) current Tag: Redirect target changed 16:06, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:Power (B.A.P single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Power (B.A.P single album) to Talk:Power (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Power 16:06, 24 May 2021 diff hist +81‎ N Power (B.A.P single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Power (B.A.P single album) to Power (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Power current Tag: New redirect 16:06, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Power (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Power (B.A.P single album) to Power (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Power current 16:05, 24 May 2021 diff hist +29‎ Lollipop (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Arts, entertainment, and media current 16:04, 24 May 2021 diff hist −7‎ Lollipop (Imfact song) ‎ ←Changed redirect target from Lollipop (Imfact single album) to Lollipop (single album) current Tag: Redirect target changed 16:03, 24 May 2021 diff hist +89‎ N Talk:Lollipop (Imfact single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Lollipop (Imfact single album) to Talk:Lollipop (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Lollipop current Tag: New redirect 16:03, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:Lollipop (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Lollipop (Imfact single album) to Talk:Lollipop (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Lollipop current 16:03, 24 May 2021 diff hist +84‎ N Lollipop (Imfact single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Lollipop (Imfact single album) to Lollipop (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Lollipop current Tag: New redirect 16:03, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Lollipop (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Lollipop (Imfact single album) to Lollipop (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Lollipop current 16:02, 24 May 2021 diff hist −17‎ m A (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Albums current 16:00, 24 May 2021 diff hist +294‎ Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ‎ →‎Requests to revert undiscussed moves 15:56, 24 May 2021 diff hist −18‎ m A (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Albums 15:56, 24 May 2021 diff hist +82‎ N Talk:A (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:A (Big Bang single album) to Talk:A (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named A current Tag: New redirect 15:56, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:A (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:A (Big Bang single album) to Talk:A (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named A current 15:56, 24 May 2021 diff hist +77‎ N A (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page A (Big Bang single album) to A (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named A current Tag: New redirect 15:56, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m A (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page A (Big Bang single album) to A (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named A current 15:54, 24 May 2021 diff hist +9‎ Flashback ‎ →‎Music current 15:53, 24 May 2021 diff hist −13‎ Flashback (After School song) ‎ ←Changed redirect target from Flashback (After School single album) to Flashback (single album) current Tag: Redirect target changed 15:52, 24 May 2021 diff hist +90‎ N Talk:Flashback (After School single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Flashback (After School single album) to Talk:Flashback (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Flashback current Tag: New redirect 15:52, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:Flashback (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Flashback (After School single album) to Talk:Flashback (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Flashback current 15:52, 24 May 2021 diff hist +85‎ N Flashback (After School single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Flashback (After School single album) to Flashback (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Flashback current Tag: New redirect 15:52, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Flashback (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Flashback (After School single album) to Flashback (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named Flashback current 15:51, 24 May 2021 diff hist +9‎ m Hush ‎ →‎Albums current 15:49, 24 May 2021 diff hist +271‎ Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ‎ →‎Uncontroversial technical requests 15:44, 24 May 2021 diff hist −9‎ E (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Music current 15:43, 24 May 2021 diff hist −9‎ E (Big Bang album) ‎ ←Changed redirect target from E (Big Bang single album) to E (single album) current Tag: Redirect target changed 15:41, 24 May 2021 diff hist +82‎ N Talk:E (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:E (Big Bang single album) to Talk:E (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named E current Tag: New redirect 15:41, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:E (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:E (Big Bang single album) to Talk:E (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named E current 15:41, 24 May 2021 diff hist +77‎ N E (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page E (Big Bang single album) to E (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named E current Tag: New redirect 15:41, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m E (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page E (Big Bang single album) to E (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named E current 15:38, 24 May 2021 diff hist +400‎ Talk:R. (album) ‎ →‎Requested move 24 May 2021 current 15:33, 24 May 2021 diff hist +215‎ Talk:0 (album) ‎ →‎Requested move 24 May 2021 15:32, 24 May 2021 diff hist +24‎ m 0 (album) ‎ current 15:28, 24 May 2021 diff hist +63‎ D (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Albums current 15:27, 24 May 2021 diff hist +82‎ N Talk:D (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:D (Big Bang single album) to Talk:D (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named D current Tag: New redirect 15:27, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:D (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:D (Big Bang single album) to Talk:D (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named D current 15:27, 24 May 2021 diff hist +77‎ N D (Big Bang single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page D (Big Bang single album) to D (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named D current Tag: New redirect 15:27, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m D (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page D (Big Bang single album) to D (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB; only single album named D current 15:23, 24 May 2021 diff hist +66‎ Bird (disambiguation) ‎ →‎Albums current 15:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist +92‎ N Talk:Boing Boing (April single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Boing Boing (April single album) to Talk:Boing Boing (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB current Tag: New redirect 15:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Talk:Boing Boing (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Talk:Boing Boing (April single album) to Talk:Boing Boing (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB current 15:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist +87‎ N Boing Boing (April single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Boing Boing (April single album) to Boing Boing (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB current Tag: New redirect 15:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist 0‎ m Boing Boing (single album) ‎ 162 etc. moved page Boing Boing (April single album) to Boing Boing (single album): WP:ALBUMDAB current

This is a lot of moves.

Can you please use WP:RM to remove artist names from articles. Thank you.In ictu oculi(talk)16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:These are all uncontroversial.WP:ALBUMDABis clear: a single album is a distinct type, and does not require additional disambiguation.162 etc.(talk)16:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:I see you are reverting these, can you please explain your justification?162 etc.(talk)16:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the nonsense opposes atTalk:Big Bang (2006 single album)I have no opinion on the title. And simply ignore the user above. They are known for gaming the system and chicken out when confronted.(CC)Tbhotch^™04:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted them because I believe that they justify RMs. They do not improveWP:CRITERIAfor the reader.In ictu oculi(talk)09:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:I don't believe that reverting article moves that are explicitly supported by a Wikipedia naming convention is a good idea, and hope that you consider undoing these reverts.162 etc.(talk)15:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Laverlochère-Angliers

Please note that if you want to propose a merger of Laverlochère and Angliers intoLaverlochère-Angliers,the process isn't just "template the pages and walk away" — you also need to post a section toTalk:Laverlochère-Angliersto explainwhyyou're proposing the merger, so that there's something for people todiscuss.If you don't do that, then the only thing that will happen is that the templates will eventually be removed from the pages as unactionable due to lack of discussion.Bearcat(talk)12:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Bearcat:Canadian cities and towns' articles are usually named after the municipal government's name; since these are two small towns which recently merged and are not notable enough for separate articles, the merge seems pretty uncontroversial. I just didn't feel like doing it myself.162 etc.(talk)16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Explaining it to me here isn't the point. The processrequiresthere to be a merger proposal posted to the talk page of the target article fordiscussion,and the merger will simplynever happen at allif you don't post a proposal to the talk page of the target article, becausethat's how the merger process works.If you don't, the only thing that willeverhappen is the templates getting removed from the articles without action, because no proposal was posted to the talk page of the target article for anybody to take any action on.Bearcat(talk)19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I just moved it.162 etc.(talk)21:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Ricoh Arena"

In future, if you have an issue with one of my edits, please try talking to me about it on my talk page before running to the Sysops boards. Would be appreciated, thanksc87d98b1002:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• @C87d98b10:Ricoh Arenawas atWP:RM2 weeks ago and there was no consensus to move. Reverting your article move was the only thing to do in this situation. Please assume good faith.162 etc.(talk)15:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

my reply here covers why the page move was correct by me-- As for assuming good faith, you're going out of your way to have an article with an incorrect title on Wikipedia, doing so in a deceptive way going behind my back to a Sysop board too. No post on the article talk page questioning the move, no post on my talk page questioning the move, just straight to technical boards looking for a Sysop or a rollbacker to revert without even giving me a chance to have a say or defend myself. So yeah, I won't be taking advice on assuming good faith from yourself, when clearly it was not something that you saw fit to assume of me. This will be my final interaction with you regarding the matter.c87d98b1023:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving an article when an RM indicated that there is no community consensus to do so is definitely something that warrants an immediate revert. Please familiarize yourself withWP:RM.162 etc.(talk)16:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe Hall

Hi 162 etc.

When I do page moves I generally followWP:Be bold.I think nobody wins if every page move goes through the full discussion process. Occasionally I come across users who have a strong feeling about article names. I am happy happy to go through a discussion in these cases. I guess you are mainly concerned aboutJoe Hallrather thanRobert McIntyreandRoger Cardinal.If that is correct, I suggest either me or you put him up for a move discussion after your "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" have been looked at. As I have been wondering about primary topic definition for people who are known by their nickname rather than their proper name, I am looking forward to the outcome.Inwind(talk)16:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inwind:I thank you for your edits and hope you take no offense by me nominating these reverts. I too will often make bold edits to followWP:NOPRIMARY.You are correct that of the three, Joe Hall is the one who has the highest long-term notability. I will gladly participate in any discussion that arises.162 etc.(talk)17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if nobody likes to touch the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". I suggest to remove all three requests and start a proper move discussion on Joe Hall. Would that be alright with you?Inwind(talk)09:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

KKR

Please drop your ongoing campaign of piping all KKR links to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. You obviously believe that KKR should be a disambiguation page, but your attempt to have this appliedwas unsuccessful,so please respect the consensus and theWP:NOTBROKENrules.Platneua(talk)06:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedInternational Table Hockey Federation,you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageTable hockey.Such links areusually incorrect,since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ• Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions.Thanks,DPL bot(talk)05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Merging ITHF and ITHF table hockey

Why? It is against standard practice, in which the articles about governing organizations and kinds of sport are different. And I no see any sense for it. Besides, it is not did in another languages and, consequently, in Wikidata. --Egilus(talk)17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My argument is that the sport is not different. There is only one article forIce hockey,not "NHL ice hockey" and "IIHF ice hockey", for example. I encourage you to discuss at the article's talk page rather than here so that other editors can contribute as well.162 etc.(talk)17:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Nur-Sultan, Requested move 8th and 9th October 2021

AtTalk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 9 October 2021you asked what was going on. This is all to do with a requested move atTalk:Allahabad#Requested move 20 September 2021.TrangaBellamwas the editor who performed closure on the move.Tecumseh*1301is an editor who favoured moving the article on Allahabad to another name. In his/her arguments for such a move,Tecumseh*1301repeatedly said that the position was similar toAstanabeing moved to Nur-Sultan (which happened on 4 May 2019‎). Having not got the result he/she wanted at Allahabad,Tecumseh*1301did two things: (1) he/she asked for amove review,and (2) has proposed that the article onNur-Sultan be moved back to Astana,making much the same arguments for the move as were made to oppose the move from Allahabad to another name. This is whereWikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a pointcomes in.--Toddy1(talk)20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible usersare allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process.It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}}to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletionnomination ofJoseph Park

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to readthe guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using theArticle Wizardto help you create articles.

A tag has been placed onJoseph Parkrequesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion,because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is aprimary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is anorphanedredirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under thecriteria for speedy deletion,such pages may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nominationbyvisiting the pageand clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator.Dan arndt(talk)06:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dan arndt:Fixed it for you.162 etc.(talk)06:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Epic Meal Time episodes

Hello, 162 etc.,

I de-PROD'd this article because you failed to inform the page creator, who is still an active editor, about this deletion tagging. If you useTwinkle,an editing tool, any time you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), Twinkle will post these talk page notifications for you once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator". These notifications are one step of the deletion process that can't be skipped over plus it is just common courtesy, especially with a PROD because it is possible for an editor to address concerns raised in the PROD deletion rationale. If you decide to nominate this page for deletion atAFD,please remember to notify the page creator.

Twinkle will also provide an appropriate edit summary for you. Any time you PROD an article or file, you should state this in the edit summary so that, if the page gets de-PROD'd, other editors can know it has already been PROD'd before. Thank you.

@Liz:@Areaseven:That's fine. I still think it's unreferenced and not notable.162 etc.(talk)23:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not discussing page move ofBonnie Lee Bakley

I haveundone your undiscussed page moveofBonnie Lee BakleytoKilling of Bonnie Lee Bakleyon the grounds thatWP:BIO1Edoes not apply, and even if it did, there is a caveat that allows for a separatebiography.Myfull explanation is on the talk page.However, one consequence of a page move like this is that a biography needs to be rewritten as acrimethis is going to be controversial if the article is a long standing or full fledged biography that covers the person's life. In this case, themove should have been discussed,first. I distinguish this from similar moves about the same time to articles aboutAbraham Grünbaum,Milan PantićandJennifer Servobecause in those articles there is minimal biographical content prior to death. However, in the case ofJennifer ServoI would have recommended discussing that move, too, because aprevious notability discussionindicatedWP:BIO1Edid not apply, although this is not clear from the article. I hope this assist you in deciding how best to approach page moves in the future. -Cameron Dewe(talk)00:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your contributions.WP:BRDapplies to pagemoves as well, and it seems like the process is working as it should.162 etc.(talk)00:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • True, that is why I chose to discuss the issue, too. However, you might want to also considerWP:TITLECHANGESin the future, (which I spotted today), this piece of advice indicates changing the title of an article is likely to be a controversial one after an article ceases to be a stub or has been stable for a long time. There are times toBe Bold,though one should alsotake carewhenignoring any rules.In other words:If it ain't broke, don't fix it,neither arbitrarily, nor just to follow a pattern; but do it to improve Wikipedia. Anyway, this little exercise proved useful as it informed me about everything I needed to consider when changing article titles, today, in theParkinson case.Thank you for your inadvertent help! It proved useful. -Cameron Dewe(talk)08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Xudun

Hi, I was wondering why theXudun, Somaliapage hasn't been moved toXudunyet? I don't believe there are any issues that would prevent this move from happening. Thank you. Subayerboombastic(talk)03:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Subayerboombastic:It appears that you've instead proposed a move toHudun.I'm not a local expert, so neutral on Xudun/Hudun; my comment atWP:RMTwas simply that the "Somaliland" tag was superfluous.162 etc.(talk)16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@162 etc.:Yes, I agree with you that adding Somaliland to the title would be unnecessary. However, it appears both Hudun and Xudun are disambiguation pages so either way it would be required. Either that or one of the disambiguation pages would need to be deleted, which seems more controversial. I believe this is the reason the page was moved in 2012 from Xudun to Xudun, Somalia. Back then the region was under Puntland control and most towns were labeled as such. However now all this areas have been under Somalilands control and other articles have been debated and amended to reflect that. As for the spelling, Hudun is the English spelling and Xudun is the Somali spelling. The vast majority of the cities and towns in the region use the English spelling in the title, so it makes sense to keep that consistent throughout.Subayerboombastic(talk)21:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardregarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Somedifferentstuff(talk)01:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ratchet

Just FYI, the RM atTalk:Ratchet (device)has been changed in a way that might affect your comment there. (It certainly did mine.)Station1(talk)06:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DEATHS RMs

Hi 162 etc. Thanks for your batch RM at what's nowTalk:Killing of Andy Lopez.You intimated that you might continue working through similarly titled articles in future RMs. Would you please ping me if you do so? I think doing so would be permissible per the "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" clause ofWP:APPNOTE,but if this slips too close to canvassing for you, a neutral notice atWT:DEATHSwould also work. Thanks!Firefangledfeathers03:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits toPMAwhile logged out. Wikipedia'spolicy on multiple accountsusually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account beingblocked from editing.Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals yourIP address,which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ―Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545}16:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC**

• No sockpuppetry intended. My IP is disclosed on my user page.162 etc.(talk)16:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Still I don't think you should be editing while logged out if you have an account. ―Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545}16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:LOGOUTdoesn't prohibit it. IPs can make productive edits too, please don't just revert everything:)162 etc.(talk)16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)162, I agree with you completely that your editing here is permissible perWP:LOGOUT.If you wanted to go over and above, you might consider noting in the edit summary when you're editing an article as both a registered user and an IP in close succession. Otherwise, you may be unintentionally misleading other editors into thinking your positions have more support than they do. It's unlikely that they'd think to check your user page.Firefangledfeathers(talk|contribs)17:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, 162, if you had cited the guidelines you did earlier then I wouldn't have reverted you so much since not only are redlinks usually perfectly fine but pipelinks are as well. ―Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545}17:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)

A few weeks ago you nominated the song "Don't Leave" for deletion and the discussion has been closed in a disappointing fashion. I have renewed the discussion here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song) (2nd nomination).---DOOMSDAYER520(TALK|CONTRIBS)18:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Doomsdayer520:While I agree with you that the article should be deleted, starting a new AfD immediately after the first one has closed is bad etiquette.WP:DRVwould be the preferred way to dispute the outcome.162 etc.(talk)21:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of bad etiquette, the closing admin in the first AfD gave no evidence that they did anything beyond count votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520(TALK|CONTRIBS)23:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You could make that argument at a deletion review, yes.162 etc.(talk)00:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Enlighten me

As to howthisisn't proper? Boldly redirecting something that's sat unsourced (and is a plot copyvio) for the better part of a decade is precisely in line withWP:BOLD.Are you going to source it?PRAXIDICAE💕19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've PROD'd it. It's not a good article, and it should probably go, but the pseudo-merge ahead of your RM didn't really seem above-board to me.162 etc.(talk)19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point, labeling perfectly fine edits as improper when an editor has chosen to redirect instead of going the overly-bureaucratic route isn't actually improper. No one said anything about an RM. Redirects are perfectly fine perWP:BOLDand there was nothing sourced or neutral to merge anywhere and I had no intention of starting an RM, so I haven't got a single clue what you're talking about as there is no move involved. Where exactly did you get the idea that I was starting an RM, especially considering I can't recall ever once even starting an RM? Oh and lastly, deleting it is useless when the second book is notable so it stands to reason that a redirect would be perfectly useful.PRAXIDICAE💕19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah my bad, the RM was actually somebody else. Anyway, reverts are a part ofWP:BRD,and it seems like the process is working as it should.162 etc.(talk)20:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really when you force an overly burecractic process toward deletion that shouldn't be deleted but kept as a useful redirect.PRAXIDICAE💕20:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocks preventing my proofs perWP:GNG&WP:V

None of the info there is fan-based as you claim. I suggest you take this to the admins and get consensus on how to mend those "rules" asST47ProxyBotis preventing me from demonstrating a perceived "fansite" article here on WP. I felt that the text in the "Overly detailed" template (as you feel that it's a bad etiquette from me.) meant that the section is for promotion. for the sources, they are there. But as I'm under series upon series of I.P. address blocks by the bot forthat,you may/will think otherwise. I've complained to others on similar instances and grounds and they've understood. It ain't your fault or mine that perWP:GNG,you should see non- "fansite" info without proof perWP:v.I see that you've brought it back, so I'll work on them and remove it again later. I thought WP is more than just education and "all-seriousness".Intrisit(talk)17:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This is a reply tothistalk page comment162 etc.(talk)18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi 162 etc., I just wanted to let you know that I haveaddedthe "autopatrolled"permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers.For more information on the autopatrolled right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled.However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/raterandUser:SD0001/StubSorter.jsare useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!Arbitrarily0^(talk)07:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice

Hey! During your moving ofTalk:The Saint (Asbury Park, New Jersey),you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the|archive=parameter in the{{User:MiszaBot/Config}}template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks!Aidan9382_(talk)17:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Only Death Is Real (album)

Are you going to start a discussion aboutOnly Death Is Real,which has multiple reviews? Please{{ping}}me when you respond.Jax 0677(talk)23:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677:Thanks for improving the article with references. I'm still not sure if it meetsWP:NALBUM,but I don't have strong feelings about it either way.162 etc.(talk)16:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Reply- In that case, I am going to remove the merge tag, unless someone wants to start some type of discussion. --Jax 0677(talk)21:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wild Card frustrations

Howdy. You're likely going to find (for reasons I can't explain) that editors are unwilling or unable to come to an agreement, concerning nearly anything to do with theMajor League Baseball Wild Card&Major League Baseball Wild Card Gamepages.GoodDay(talk)22:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Second PROD

Please readTalk:Slow Dance (poem)#Second PRODand I suggest reply there, but it can be here if you prefer.Andrewa(talk)12:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Queens Plate

A contested technical move request on which you commented is now atTalk:Queens Plate.-Station1(talk)17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Roland (Japanese host) moved to Roland (entertainer)

Hello, and thank you for trying to help with the article. I'm not sure if 'entertainer' is the best description for this individual - he is at least as active as a businessperson as he is in any form of entertainment. I had added the host tag, as he is mainly known as such specifically. Could you help think of a more accurate description? Thanks,Londonbeat41692(talk)00:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. It's impossible to summarize somebody's entire life in one word - yet that's what we have to do when picking disambiguation tags:)

I moved the article because "Japanese host" is overly detailed (there is noRoland (host)article) and "entertainer" is a standard form recommended byWP:SINGERDAB.Of course, he is also involved in business, but I wouldn't say that "businessman" is more accurate.

For example,Drake (musician)is also a successful businessman (OVO Sound) and worked as an actor (Degrassi: The Next Generation), but he is best known as a musician, so we narrow it down to that.162 etc.(talk)15:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gold (radio network)" listed atRedirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirectGold (radio network)and has thus listed itfor discussion.This discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 2#Gold (radio network)until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.Bassie f(talk)09:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination ofLamberghinifor deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleLamberghiniis suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelinesor whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamberghiniuntil a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BD2412T20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

DeproddingofCalcium Lime Rust

I have removed the{{proposed deletion/dated}}tag fromCalcium Lime Rust,which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add{{proposed deletion}}back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it atWikipedia:Articles for deletion.Thanks!LimonesMI(talk)15:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bing Bong

Hello 162 etc.,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedBing Bongfor deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you cancontest this deletion,but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk pageif you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via thePage Curationtool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Josey Wales^Parley20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverted good-faith edit; the page had been vandalized.Bing Bongis a useful redirect to the dabpage atBing-bong.162 etc.(talk)20:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I'm surprised to see that the good work you've been doing for a while has been under-recognized. Thank you for your many well-reasoned contributions to requested move discussions. I'm grateful also for all the disambiguation pages (>100) and redirects (>1000) you've created. I'm sure our readers have benefited the effort you've put into pointing them in the right direction.Firefangledfeathers(talk/contribs)19:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

NERO (video game)

Hello, 162 etc,

If you expect to do moreProposed deletiontagging, a couple of things to put in mind. First, like making a nomination atAFD,you need to provide a deletion rationale for why this article or file should be deleted. Just writing "[[WP:N]]" isn't sufficient. Write at least one complete sentence to justify why this article merits deletion, just posting a code to a policy guidelines is not an explanation.Speedy deletionallows you to tag pages for deletion with just a reference to a criteria for speedy deletion but PRODs and AFDs require editors to make an argument why a page should be deleted. It doesn't need to be long, but it has to be more than [[WP:N]].

Second, you need to leave a descriptive edit summaries. PRODs can be de-PRODed. If, years later, another editor decides to PROD the article again, they need to be able to see that it has already been PROD'd once and the way they can see this is by looking at the edit summaries in the page history. This is made more difficult if you don't leave any edit summary at all! So, just write, "Proposing article for PROD" or even just "PROD" in your edit summary when you tag a page for Proposed deletion.

Finally, these processes are made easier if you start usingTwinkleto tag pages for deletion or to tag them for other reasons. Twinkle is an editing tool most page patrollers and a lot of administrators use. For example, once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post a deletion notice on the page creator's talk page for you. It will also leave a descriptive edit summary so you don't need to type one out. It remembers all of the codes and templates so you don't have to searching for the right one to use. It will maintain deletion logs for you. You can report vandals to noticeboards using Twinkle. It is very handy and I encourage you to try it out if you aren't already using it.

Just a few comments. Thank you for all of the work you are doing on the project!Liz^Read!Talk!20:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to see some example of typical PROD deletion rationales offered by other editors, look over the list of upcoming Proposed deletions atUser:DumbBOT/ProdSummaryand you can see what I'm referring to. Some of these examples are better than others but you can see that the typical deletion rationale is at least a sentence. Thanks again.Liz^Read!Talk!20:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

WWE Day 1 (2022)

Hello 162 etc. Ideclinedthe technical move that you proposed. Though I admit that the original actor,User:Zk911912,should have sought consensus, anything that I can do now risks making a mess. Also, in your report you stated that someone had done merges. I couldn't see any merges. Thank you,EdJohnston(talk)17:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:The mess has been made, I'm afraid; all three of these were separate articles, and were (somewhat messily) merged into what is currentlyWWE Day 1 (2022).With all due respect to your good-faith attempt to resolve this, I've re-added the request toWP:RMT.162 etc.(talk)17:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Luke Menzies

Hi. There is a move request inTalk:Luke Menzies.Can you give your opinion? Thanks.Margarte00(talk)16:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I have to say that I'm not familiar enough with rugby (where Menzies first established his notability) to say for certain that his ring name is more recognizable than his birth name.162 etc.(talk)18:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletionnomination ofWeezy (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to readthe guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using theArticle Wizardto help you create articles.

A tag has been placed onWeezy (disambiguation)requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion,because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is aprimary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is anorphanedredirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under thecriteria for speedy deletion,such pages may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nominationbyvisiting the pageand clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator.Shhhnotsoloud(talk)21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Super League (virtual sports)

Hello, 162 etc.,

When you tag an article for aProposed Deletion,please write a more substantial deletion rationale than justWP:N.By that I mean, write at least one full sentence that shows you actually examined the sources or looked for additional sources to improve the article. I have de-PROD'd articles with similarly overly brief deletion rationales but this one did seem to lack notability. But please do this in the future if you wish your PROD deletion nominations to be taken seriously and not de-PROD'd. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!22:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did toAndover railway station,without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has someguidelinesin place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use thetestWikipedia. Take a look at thewelcome pageto learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.I have added this to the requested moves page, so this will be reverted soon.Mattdaviesfsic(talk)06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Andover railway station

Hi, the link to this staion on the Southampton railways template is not ambiguous, mit doesn't require the suffix |England. RegardsMurgatroyd49(talk)09:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible usersare allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process.It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}}to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice atTalk:Anthony Jenningsto notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influenceWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Jennings (American football).Whilefriendly noticesare allowed, they should belimitedandnonpartisanin distribution and should reflect aneutralpoint of view.Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted,which espouse a certainpoint of viewor side of a debate, or which areselectively sentonly to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.4meter4(talk)19:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for striking the comment, but leaving the text where it is still visible and readable did not solve the problem of a non-neutral notification. It needed to be removed completely to follow policy atWP:CANVASSING.I therefore redacted your non-neutral comment entirely from the page, and left the neutral part of the notice. This is what should have done by you earlier. In the future, if a similar situation crops up you can not make any sort of evaluation or provide any sort of opinion on the discussion or its consensus when placing a notice. That is canvassing. Best.4meter4(talk)17:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you reverted it. Do I really need to take this toWP:ANI?I really don't want to, but I will if I must.4meter4(talk)17:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4:You can't delete somebody else's comment. Take it toWP:ANIif you like.162 etc.(talk)17:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, I thought I was being helpful in moving it to a resolution, but clearly we are not there. I am just going to just let this go, rather than needlessly create drama for you at ANI. We both have better ways to spend our day. However, I think you are being unreasonable, unfair, rude, and breaking the spirit of our policies. I strongly urge you to redact the conversation entirely, because it is the right thing to do. It really shouldn't be a big deal to leave a brief neutral notice without commenting on the AFD discussion. Best.4meter4(talk)17:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but disagree with it. I think we are both acting in good faith here. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)17:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Dab pages

You have claimedMOS:DABORDERstates "Blue links should be at the top", but nowhere does it state this (please quote what you mean), and the entry on IIII being for Roman numerals also has a blue article to link to. You have been the only Wikipedia editor to claim an album is the primary topic for aRoman numeral.IIII redirected there for years withoutanyissue—that makes it the primary topic. If you cannot handle the primary entry onIIIIbeing for where the page redirected for years, I will revert your converting of the article to being a dab page and it can be put to a discussion whether it should evenbea dab page or not. The fact you think an album takes precedence over how many centuries of IV being written as IIII is honestly ridiculous. The fact that the two or three other moves you requested the other day (that I performed) were reverted because there was already a move discussion months ago that you'd seemingly ignored should tell you your opinions on disambiguation clearly don't match other editors' and I think you need to reconsider what you request.Ss11223:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree and would support restoring the original redirect. That's not something that should be changed w/o discussion and consensus. I'm fine with a DAB existing. But IIII for the vast majority of people, is going to be a classical Roman Numeral and that's where it should point to. -Ad Orientem(talk)00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Example ordering;DABMENTION comes last. I'll leave the revert in for now, until the RM plays out. Discussion relating to "IIII" should be atTalk:IIII (album),not my talk page.162 etc.(talk)17:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bold merges"

Hi 162 etc. Following theblank and redirectatUnderwater ice hockeyand the ensuing discussion atthe talk pageand reversion, I feel that for due diligence I must ask whether you have done other blank and redirects described in edit summaries as bold merges, without anactual merge,and if so, whether you can justify them in terms of policy or community accepted guidance. Please ping with reply. · · ·Peter Southwood^(talk):01:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See here[1]162 etc.(talk)07:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Special:Contributions page. I was hoping for a more cooperative response, which could have had this issue sorted out without wasting too much time, but you are not obliged to do that. I see from a search of your last 500 contributions that this was not an isolated incident.

Do you understand why "Bold merge" is not an acceptable edit summary for a "blank and redirect" edit, in which you do not merge any of the content into the target article, and there was in at least one case not even any mention of the redirected term in the target article? Please ping with reply. · · ·Peter Southwood^(talk):18:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in discussing this further. If any of my edits are in violation of Wikipedia policy, please be bold and revert.162 etc.(talk)19:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When your edits are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and it is pointed out to you, you are required to stop violating that policy, My questions were intended to help find out whether you are competent to follow Wikipedia policy, and whether you can be trusted to follow Wikipedia policy. I remain unconvinced on both of these points. I hereby warn you that if you continue to make intentionally misleading edit summaries it will be considered disruptive editing, and may lead to sanctions. · · ·Peter Southwood^(talk):20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Maël

Hello, would you please take a look a the newly put move atTalk:Maël#Requested_move_5_February_2023. Thanks,121.127.212.32(talk)13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

OEG Inc.

162 etc.,Thank you so much for your recent contributions related to OEG Inc. and their retail cannabis work. While the page move is under discussion, I was wondering if you might consider improving the existingOilers Entertainment Grouparticle by introducing subsections within the Operations section? Something likeSports and Entertainmentfor all the sports teams, Rogers Place, and film content, andRetail Cannabisfor the content you just added. Again, I appreciate the work you've already done and would value your help to make additional improvements to the page. Thank youDJ for Katz(talk)18:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move closed

ReKevin Long (footballer),I agree that the hatnote up there needs to be reworded or removed. I instantly think there is no primary Kevin Long on there anyway.Iggy(Swan) (Contribs)22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it.162 etc.(talk)23:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your requests atWP:RM/TR

Hi @162 etc.!Thank you for your contributions. This is just a friendlyremindermessage to add Uncontroversial technical requests onWP:RM/Tat the bottom, below other requests rather than at the top. Thanks.❯❯❯Raydann^(Talk)07:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Since when?162 etc.(talk)07:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe it's enforced anywhere. It's just a gentleWiki etiquetteto post new things at the bottom, like in talk pages, discussions etc. You don't have to follow this, but I just thought I'd let you know my thoughts. Best.❯❯❯Raydann^(Talk)07:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann:For years, the instructions atWP:RM/TRsaid to put new requests at the top of the list. They were only changed a week ago[2]to put new requests at the bottom.Station1(talk)10:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Must've missed that. Thanks.❯❯❯Raydann^(Talk)10:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see there have been some format changes atWP:RMTlately thatI'm not sure actually improve anything.For the record, the text box's instructions still read"enter on a new line, directly below"ie. at the top.162 etc.(talk)17:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, that was discussedhere.Silikonz💬22:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FLO source

Oh hello, I didn't understand why your removal in theFLOarticle. I consulted the information in a dictionary and onWiktionaryhimself, and I don't think it needs a "source" because it's only three letters.Silencedoc(talk)04:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

PerWP:CITE:"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."I'll also add that the pronunciation of "Flo" is intuitive and doesn't need further explanation.162 etc.(talk)04:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no probability of contestation, because it's about pronunciation of every letter, just visit a dictionary. I added both pronunciations because there's quite doubt which is the right one. But ok:^Silencedoc(talk)04:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Merging

Thanks for creating the RM. The discussion got too lengthy, so: could you please clarify if you're planning to add content into the author's article from your merged redirects? The current blank-and-redirect do not assist navigation at all, as they point to the author's article w/o any context.Silikonz💬22:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps redirecting toJoyce Carol Oates bibliography#Novelsis better?162 etc.(talk)22:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be a bit better, but unless that list is to be expanded with info from the 'merged' articles, the navbox of her works serves no purpose.Silikonz💬22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the navbox can be updated; usually these only include links to articles, not redirects or redlinks.162 etc.(talk)22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

About your move

a kindly remind, it seems you are making wrong moves on several pages.Gweilo60(talk)15:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Page mover

Hi 162 etc.! Thanks for your high-quality contributions to requested moves and RMTR. You might want to consider requestingpage moverpermissions, so that you can avoid RMTR in the future and implement actions yourself; you're certainly qualified enough. Best wishes,EpicPupper(talk)23:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

22 March 2023

Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion atSugar Mama.Please note that, on Wikipedia,consensusis determined bydiscussion, not voting,and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia'sdeletion policyfor a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Please refrain from preempting a RM discussion while it is still ongoing. Do not edit the page in a manor which aligns with a presumed outcome of the discussion before the discussion has been closed. —CJDOS, Sheridan, OR(talk)17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't participate in any discussion atSugar Mama.I did however revert edits that you made to the dabpage which are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I'll also note that my edits were made before your RM discussion was opened, not after. We'll let the discussion play out (the requested move proposal, as of this writing, seems to be widely opposed) but I intend on restoring the edits. You can familiarize yourself by referring to the guideline atWP:DAB.Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over atHelp:Archiving a talk page.Thanks! –MaterialWorks(contribs)19:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Cazale and Casale

Hello!:) Thanks so much for putting up thenot to be confusedmessage on theCazalearticle. I am, however, struggling to find sources which suggest that those are two separate cities. I thought that it's just the same city and different spellings... do you know of any sources I could cite to help clear up this confusion? Thanks so much!!:)KluskaSlaska(talk)20:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@KluskaSlaska:I'm not an expert, I'm afraid - I was just gnoming some Haiti placename article titles when I did this. From what I can see, you may be correct thatCazaleis aWP:CFORK.162 etc.(talk)21:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the reply:) will look into it a little more when I got a bit more time. If it is a CFORK, I'll need to figure out what appropriate next steps are:) (I'm still a little new here!)KluskaSlaska(talk)06:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've researched this a bit more, and per reliable sources (notablythis), I'm convinced they're the same. The articles have been merged.162 etc.(talk)16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Amazing!! Thanks so much for looking into this and for completing the merge, much appreciated:)KluskaSlaska(talk)17:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion onTalk:Bugatti

I just started a move discussion directly related toa previous onewhich you participated in. Would you be interested in joining?Marisauna(talk)21:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hi @162 etc.it's me, is it allowed to useRequested/Technicalrequests to exchange articles? recently a user deleted my articles to replace them with his. This has happened a few times...?Silencedoc¿06:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Silencedoc:Not sure if I can help here, but I'll need you to be more specific. Which articles are we looking at?162 etc.(talk)15:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's actually a question. If this is common and also how to prevent it from happening, if there is such a possibility. A more recent deleted article wasAlone,when accessing thelogyou will notice that I created it first.?Silencedoc¿020:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't own an article. SeeWP:OWNERSHIP.If there are two articles for the same topic, they will be merged. SeeWP:CFORK.162 etc.(talk)20:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't own any articles, just a new wikipedia editor who likes to take questions with other experienced editors. I find it strange to delete an article instead of editing it. Understood.?Silencedoc¿21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)15:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, 162 etc.,

Please useTwinklewhen you are tagging pages for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). I'm looking at some articles you PROD'd and there are two problems: a) there is no edit summary explaining that you are tagging the article for a Proposed Deletion and b) you didn't post a notification on the talk page for the article creator. The latter is an important step in all deletion processes. I'm sure that if you worked on creating and developing an article, that you would want to know if the article was headed towards deletion. This is especially important with PRODs because any editor can address the issues brought up in the deletion rationale and remove the PROD tag.

Twinkle does so many things, you can use it to tag an article regarding problems, report vandals to noticeboards, welcome an editor, add a warning notice to a problematic editor, set up an AFD discussion, it basically remembers all of the templates you might need so that you don't have to. I think if you try it out, like most page patrollers and many admins, you won't know how you edited the project without it. But please set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then when you tag an article for deletion, Twinkle will post a notice on the talk page of the page creator on your behalf.

It would also help if you provide a fuller reason for deleting an article than just "WP:N", maybe a few sentences explaining why you believe an article should be deleted. Thank you for considering this request.Liz^Read!Talk!00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you do around here.Volten001☎19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Stephen King

All novels written under the pseudonymRichard Bachmanwere written byStephen King.Please explain why you have repeatedly removedCategory:Novels by Stephen Kingfrom articles about Stephen King novelswith no discussion.Sundayclose(talk)12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.User:Jeremyeyorkhas on two occasions addedCategory:Novels by Stephen Kingto articles on books authored under the Bachman pseudonym, which I've reverted back to the stable version. These works are already categorized underCategory:Novels by Richard Bachman,a subcategory ofCategory:Novels by Stephen King,and therefore the addition of the latter category is redundant.162 etc.(talk)17:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Note that anedit summarywould avoid confusion and (I hope) let the other editor know why you are reverting.Sundayclose(talk)18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I suggest that when you rename an article to aWP:PDABtitle, you should make sure the article has a hatnote to address the resulting ambiguity, like the oneI just addedtoScarlet (song).—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof(talk)19:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)19:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error onSimon Benoit

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot).I haveautomatically detectedthatthis editperformed by you, on the pageSimon Benoit,may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URLandmissing title"error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix|Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive,you canreport it to my operator. Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot)(talk)15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Redwood Tree

Hi. When you did this[3]you should have made provision for the other ambiguous entry by putting a hatnote at the target. You might also have taggedRedwood Tree (disambiguation)asWP:G14instead of allowing a bot to erroneously retarget it. Please don't just blank and redirect these 2-entry disambiguation pages. Thanks.Shhhnotsoloud(talk)19:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error onRaymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot).I haveautomatically detectedthatthis editperformed by you, on the pageRaymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park,may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URLandmissing title"error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix|Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive,you canreport it to my operator. Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot)(talk)17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Page mover

I see this was suggested above, but to put a finer point on it: would you object if I gave youthe page mover right?Clearly you know what you're doing, so reducing the number of RM/TR requests you have to make would be in everyone's best interest, I think.Extraordinary Writ(talk)06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure.162 etc.(talk)00:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. You may want to reviewWikipedia:Page moverand/orTemplate:Page mover grantedfor more information about the right, although I'm sure you're already familiar with most of it.Extraordinary Writ(talk)01:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Guidehouse article update

Hi 162 etc., this is Danny from Guidehouse.You had mentioneda while back that you had no objections to the edits I had proposed and Arbitrarily0 also approved them. Since I am a COI editor, I cannot do this myself nor would I feel comfortable doing so even with the go-ahead of a volunteer editor. Would you be willing to make the changes on my behalf? Thanks!DS from Guidehouse(talk)16:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@DS from Guidehouse:Sure. Post an updated draft to your sandbox and I'll move it to mainspace. Thank you for your commitment to following COI policies, and your work to improve the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@162 etc.:Thank you so much! I have uploaded the drafthere,and updated it with the recent addition about Bain Capital. Really appreciate your assistance.DS from Guidehouse(talk)15:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible usersare allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process.It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}}to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Redir stripping and move

Hi,@162 etc.!

I see that you twice moved the dabLike the Wind (song)from pointing a more specific target to pointing to a disambiguation page (a "dab" ). You also completely deleted both the entire redirect shell, and the two categorisations. I hope all this was due to misunderstanding.

In general, we avoid redirs to dabs, when there are more specific targets. As you can see, the dab you twice choose as target,Like the Wind,does contain a reference to the song as one of its entries, by referring to the articleBelgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999.In such situations, we usually let the redir point to the more precise target, not the dab. (Actually, redirecting to a dab is deprecated, as is by the software; you can read the warnings that the software added to your edit comments for both your editsin the history.)

As you perhaps knows, we also have a bunch of specific templates used for redirs. You find them in theCategory:Redirect templatesand its subcategories. In general, a redir should contain at least one of these templates; often several. If there are more than one, a template shell should be used. For some reason (quite possibly by a simple oversight), you completely removed the whole shell, with its four specific redir attributes, when you changed the target. You can compare the information onthe original versionwiththe way you left it.

Finally, one of the attributes you removed was theTemplate:R with possibilities.At some time in the future, hopefully, someone with enough knowledge, interest, and time, will restore the article, but as a full article rather than a stub. Until then, at least, it should be possible to find the scant information we now provide about the subject by means of the relevant categories. (And, yes, categorising redirs with potentials very often is a good idea.)

Since I guess most of the trouble was due just to some oversights, I shall revert your last edit. If you disagree, you may change the target again - but, please, if you do, think over any further changes you want to make; do not remove content you have not decided ought to be removed!JoergenB(talk)04:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi,Like the Wind (song)was listed as an ambiguous redirect atWP:PDAB,which is why I retargeted it. I'll instead move toLike the Wind (Vanessa Chinitor song),in order to keep the categorizations.162 etc.(talk)04:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a much better solution! However, you might also consider somebroken links,which I fear will be changed to the wrong target if you leave it to a robot; and the Wikidata item, which takes care of the links to other language versions (and more; but this time I fixed that item,d:Q3271724).JoergenB(talk)05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, the link from the file listedherenow is wrong. (In general, if you move a page and leaves a link from the old name to the new one, most pages will still link to the intended; sometimes by a double redir, but a bot may take care of that eventually. However, if youdo notleave any link at all from the old name, or, as in your case, immediately changes the target from the old name page, then things can get a bit confused. Thus, checking the "What links here" option may be a good idea.)JoergenB(talk)05:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Instagram (Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, David Guetta, Daddy Yankee, Afro Bros, and Natti Natasha song)

Hello, In late November, I moved the articleInstagram (Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, David Guetta, Daddy Yankee, Afro Bros, and Natti Natasha song)toInstagram (2019 song),but was reverted by you. I knew the guidelineWP:SONGDABexisted, but I decided toWP:IARsince the original disambiguator is impractically long. "2019 song" provides the same about of clarity while being drastically shorter.Ca^{talk to me!}10:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You could make that argument at an RM. While the naming convention in this case results in a longer title, I believe it should be followed.162 etc.(talk)18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert to use of redirect on a DAB page

I was notified ofthis revert.I think it is contrary toMOS:DABPIPE:"Apart from the exceptions listed below, piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages." See also its examples for "Switch" and "Ten", which do not start the list entry with the link. Also please noteWP:DABSTYLE's efn statement saying "Communicating the actual titles of entries at variance with the base title one might expect—were the entries not ambiguous with each other—is integral to the purpose of a DAB page." In this case, the redirect is covering up the fact that the linked article is on a different (broader scope) subject. This is all moot iftoy boy (slang)is agreed to be the primary topic for the term (see the RM atTalk:Toy boy#Requested move 18 December 2023), but in that case the opening sentence of the DAB page would be phrased differently. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof(talk)20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading a bit further down in the MOS section you referenced here, you'll notice the example withEon (geology)which illustrates a usage which I think also applies in the case ofToy boy (slang).It's not a super big deal though, and as you say, there is a good chance that the slang term is the primary topic anyway and this is moot. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)23:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that Eon example looks very similar! It looks like you were right. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof(talk)00:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, 162 etc.,

I see you moving articles from page titles in all caps to regular capitalization. However, when I checked all of the articles, the companies are named in all caps. Shouldn't we go by what the sources say and not strictly MOS?Liz^Read!Talk!06:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ALLCAPSis pretty clear on this:"Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps."Exceptions are exceedingly rare. If you believe any of my edits are improper, you are of course encouraged to revert and/or start a discussion on the relevant talk page.162 etc.(talk)06:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Any cleanup required?

I have performed the move as requestedhere.I’m informing you because it strikes me like some cleanups needs to be done. Best,Reading Beans(talk)16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What kind of cleanup? Looks fine to me.162 etc.(talk)01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error onNike, Inc.

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot).I haveautomatically detectedthatthis editperformed by you, on the pageNike, Inc.,may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URLandmissing title"error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix|Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive,you canreport it to my operator. Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot)(talk)21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error onBill "El Wingador" Simmons

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot).I haveautomatically detectedthatthis editperformed by you, on the pageBill "El Wingador" Simmons,may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URLandmissing title"error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix|"El%20Wingador" %20Simmons%5D%5D Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive,you canreport it to my operator. Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot)(talk)20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsubscribe.162 etc.(talk)21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Save the Kids token

I appreciate you moving this back, I should not have acted so unilaterally. Due to the fact that there was only one vote in that RM, I might start a new one at some point, but I appreciate you defending thestatus quo.Thank you for being forthcoming with me about why that move was problematic.JeffSpaceman(talk)04:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi. I wanted to apologize for and clarify aboutthis edit.I was looking for the article about the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, and typed "Milk scandal", and in the search suggestions appeared "Mink scandal" which does redirect to the article about the Danish mink cull, but I didn't notice that the word in the redirect and the article was "mink" and not "milk" and didn't pay attention to it. Thanks for reverting my edit. Kind regards.--SRuizR22:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello 162 etc.!

• TheNew Pages Patrolis currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet theguidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly readthe tutorialbefore making your decision, and feel free to post on theproject talk pagewith questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please considerapplying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery(talk)15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Help?

Hi again,

could I trouble you to take a look at this situation?

• Odisea (album)
• Odisea
• Odisseia

I daresay the mildly notable album makes a better primary than the current one, but I dunno what, if anything, should be done with the other two. They're about the same thing, give or take, are stubs, more or less, and are unsourced. They do have hundreds of incoming links, which based on a couple of spot checks is mostly because they appear in various TV-channel navboxes.

Definitely out of my comfort zone, heh. - (theHeart BreakIP)89.183.221.75(talk)20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Odiseais now a disambiguation page.Odisseiaappears to be aWP:CFORK;I'm not an expert on this topic, so I've started a merge discussion. If you wantOdisea (album)to be the primary topic, that requires a discussion; seeWP:RM.162 etc.(talk)21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, having a dab as the primary is my general preference as well. Thanks so much for taking this off my hands!:) -89.183.221.75(talk)12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Michael Venom Page

Hello,

Please do not undo productive edits as you did onMichael Page,MVP is a British fighter and the date formats were painstakingly changed to reflect that. Without looking into it, you then carelessly undid them all.

Please take care to not do that again.

Kind regards,

2A00:23C5:8104:2401:C431:FE46:B2DC:BC28(talk)21:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) § Proposed allowance of PDABs for films

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) § Proposed allowance of PDABs for films.JohnCWiesenthal(talk)03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)

Hello, 162 etc.,

You seem to be the only editor who insists that this be the page title for this article. Several different editors have changed it to its legal name but you keep moving it back. You cite a RM discussion but all I can find isTalk:Bed Bath & Beyond#Requested move 12 October 2023which closed as No Consensus. Is there another RM discussion that supports your action? Because I don't see it and you have multiple editors who disagree with you on the page title. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

PerWP:PCM,"A move is potentially controversial if (...) there has been any past debate about the best title for the page".Therefore, any article that has prior RM history should not be bold moved; an RM is needed.162 etc.(talk)22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Canadian flags

A split tag is not allowed to just sit on an article for three years without being resolved, especially when one of the key reasons it's never been resolved is that nobody ever initiated any discussion about it in the first place — meaning that nothing ever happened precisely because there was no discussion for anybody to act on, and nothing is evergoingto happen given that editors don't revisit old outdated tags like that.

It's not a tag that people can just slap on a page and walk away from and leave there forever. It's a tag that requiresdiscussion,and it's a tag that requiresresolutionwithin adefinedperiod of time and cannot just sit there for years.

So if you really "support" a split, then you need to do two things: actually initiate the required discussion on the talk page so that there's something for people todiscuss,and change the date on the template to May 2024 so that it'scurrent.But nobody everinitiatedanydiscussion,so the tagcannotjust stay on the article forever if nobody's everdiscussedit.Bearcat(talk)03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds familiar.162 etc.(talk)04:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I've split the article.162 etc.(talk)04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

FIX THE CLIPPERS LOGO

Bring the: There once was a ship that went to sea and the name of that ship was billy-o-tea clippers logo.

You drive me nuts. GoDolphins71.121.184.15(talk)23:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fender amp reverts

I think you went just a little overboard with redirecting Fender amps. Some of those might be combined (ie: reverb and non-reverb units) but most of those have been around long enough that printed press has covered them enough to pass WP:N. Redirect the Princeton? That is just one example but an obvious one. I've reverted most of them back. I'm not against trimming it up a bit, but if there has been decent coverage, the topic is better covered with separate articles rather than trying to merge them into a giant article, as they all have a long and detailed history. They need more sources, granted, but if you know amps, you know they exist, even if in libraries rather than online.Dennis Brown-2¢07:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:Hi, thank you for your contributions. "Decent coverage" is indeed a core Wikipedia criterion - asWP:Nsays,"if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."These amplifier articles, while in some cases well-written, did not appear to have sufficient secondary source coverage. At the very least, they should be {{more sources needed}} tagged, with the unreferenced content within deleted, perWP:PROVEIT.Note that some articles in this category, such asFender Deluxe,were left as-is, since they seemed to have some evidence of reliable source coverage.

"Reliable" is also something I should touch on here. Not all sources are good ones; seeWP:SOURCES.Blogs, etc. are not a source we should be basing an encyclopedia around. You mention that "printed press has covered them"; if that is the case, please beWP:BOLDand add relevant citations to the article.162 etc.(talk)16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• MaybeWP:Vwould be a good read. Verify doesn't require that everything is fully sourced, only that it is reasonable that it can be, which is the case here for most of those.WP:No deadlinemight also be worth a read. We don't redirect articles that actually have a good chance to be fleshed out and sourced better, we improve them. I'm not sure how familiar you are with these topics (suffice it to say, I'm quite competent with this subject), but changing all these to redirects was sloppy and not supported in policy when theycanbe sourced. Nothing personal, but I've been here since 2006 with extensive contributions. I really don't need someone quoting me the most basic policies, particularly when they are reading them wrong.Dennis Brown-2¢00:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:VERIFYstates that"All material in Wikipedia mainspace (...) must be verifiable (...) any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material."Your assertion that "Verify doesn't require that everything is fully sourced" appears to me quite the opposite of what the policy actually says.

  The articles in question have either no sources, or contain an unacceptable amount of unverifiable information, the removal of which would reduce the article itself to stub status. Note that perWP:NODEADLINE,"we can afford (...) to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established."

  So, in a nutshell, either it's properly sourced, or it has to go.The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)01:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Stressed out"listed atRedirects for discussion

The redirectStressed outhas been listed atredirects for discussionto determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines.Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 20 § Stressed outuntil a consensus is reached.Crouch, Swale(talk)19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Bowman Field

Can you fix the talk page? It's a redirect. I'm not sure which page should have moved there, but apparently it didn't get moved. --Pemilligan(talk)01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --Pemilligan(talk)16:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoroughfare

Hi 162 etc.,

You should have checked some dictionaries before reverting my good faith edit, Athroughwayis "n.amer. (also esp. USthruway) an expressway "(The Canadian Oxford Dictinary(1998). Chambers (13th edition) has a similar entry but uses the word "motorway". However, on searching further, I found that the full onlineOxford English Dictionaryalso gives, "A passage or way through;esp.a road or path forming a route between two places; a thoroughfare. "Sorry if I offended, but as I noted earlier I didn't recognize the word" throughway ". So, are you using British usage for this newly created article? Please fix.

PS I was overly belligerent, for which I apologize, but I felt that there had been poor communication and confusion in the ongoing discussion. I have never been reverted so often, though I'm banned for life byConservapedia.Rwood128(talk)11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Article titles are determined by consensus, not dictionaries. In this case, that'sRight of way (public throughway),per the recent RM discussion. Potentially controversial moves must be discussed. SeeWP:PTM,WP:RM.Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)14:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

On Rallying

The discussion there is heading towards being unhelpful for others.

• WP:RETAIN:"With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from oneacceptableoption to another. "
• WP:COMMONNAME:Rally racingisnotthe common name for all rallying, anywhere in the world. Only a portion of the sport - seeRallying#Speed competitions(in a portion of the world). It's Athletics vs Running.
• WP:ENGVAR: Following the above point, this does not apply because we're not talking elevator vs door, we're talking elevator vs elevator button.

It looks like Rally racing moved to Rallying as the scope expanded. It happened 20 years ago. To me it isn't justified but maybe a split would be a better proposal? However as rallying would remain (somewhere), the notability of, the available sources for, and desire to create Rally racing would be pretty weak I imagine.Rally Wonk(talk)19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have no opinion when it comes to a split of the article. I've already expressed my view concerning the title of the current article atTalk:Rallying.Discussion is necessary to form a consensus; I don't see why you believe that it is unhelpful. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)20:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain my position which isn't being challenged. Your suggestion is as helpful as suggesting the article should move to Cheese. I'm trying to understand your position.

Apologies.Rally Wonk(talk)21:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

> "Your suggestion is as helpful as suggesting the article should move to Cheese."

Such an insolent statement certainly should be apologized for. SeeWP:CIVILandWP:AGF.

I'm unsure why you've decided to bring this to my talk page, rather thanTalk:Rallying,which is where the discussion is taking place.162 etc.(talk)21:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have been civil at all times. I am trying to have a constructive conversation with you as you're not showing an understanding of anything I am typing, nor a will to engage in constructive conversation about a topic which is important to me. Your replies are always on the offence, and once again you have replied with a link to policies rather than anything constructive.

I came to your page because nobody else is struggling with this at Talk:Rallying. I shall now abandon this friendly gesture because I cannot distinguish if you are trolling.

Best wishes.Rally Wonk(talk)22:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft under the redirect

It is permissible, and hasalwaysbeen permissible to draft the proposed new content under the redirect while the discussion is ongoing.

It literally says in the RfD template: "Don't add anything after this lineunless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect".

I will give you the opportunity to restore this yourself.BD2412T01:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

TIL. Thanks!162 etc.(talk)01:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We learn by doing. Cheers!BD2412T01:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk page redirect

I noticed that you have put the article "From the Start"talk page to a redirect of it'sdisambiguationtalk page. May I know why you did this?

Best Regards,KjjjKjjj(talk)13:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, seems like the talk page was missed when moving the article to main title. Now fixed. Thanks!162 etc.(talk)15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 Julyregarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread isWikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre.Thank you.122141510(talk)02:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

vici

You removed entry 'vici(Sanskrit, Hindi 'विची'),wave(in mathematics, water, etc., contrasted toavici)'. Since there's avici ('waveless') article there needs to be entry on word it's derived from. Two the the long-time 'vici' entries are in another language, so this isn't out of place.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib)05:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of "vici" atWave.Note also that disambiguation pages are not a dictionary;WP: DABDICT.I urge you to familiarize yourself withWP:DABandWP:UE.162 etc.(talk)16:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Miligram"listed atRedirects for discussion

The redirectMiligramhas been listed atredirects for discussionto determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines.Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 5 § Miligramuntil a consensus is reached.Tevildo(talk)12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To IP or not IP,

Your username is great.Jruderman(talk)22:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Romanization of Belarusian geographical names

Regardingthisedit, it seems that the previous romanization system was declared invalid and a new system replaced it last year.[4]This includes some key changes, for example "г" is romanized as "g" rather than "h" and "ў" is romanized as "w" rather than "ŭ". I also foundthisnews article.

Since we are using BGN/PCGN romanization, this does not really have any effect here, butWP:BELARUSIANNAMESstill includes the official instruction on geographical names as something that may be additionally included. Does this need to be updated?Mellk(talk)22:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that recent edits have been made toInstruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script,and I don't necessarily agree with them. The 2023 "Transfer of names" rules appear to be a new standard, not an update of the 2000/2007Instruction,and should be in their own article. It's also unclear what, if any, secondary sources actually use the 2023 rules.162 etc.(talk)22:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, the instruction on transliteration was declared to be no longer valid, rather than updated, so it does not make sense to include the 2023 rules there. I also agree that it is best to wait to see if any sources use this system first before making any changes. Thanks.Mellk(talk)07:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Shortening nascar race article names?

Hello Mr. 162! I saw you kept on reverting theNASCAR Cup Series at New Hampshire Motor SpeedwaytoCrayon 301,however it seems like that name will stick as race names change every season. If possible, could I shorten those types to just "at New Hampshire" or "at Dover"? I feel like having the full track name'll make it uncomfortable for the generic reader. Thanks!45BearsFan(talk)20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that theWP:COMMONNAMEas of this year isUSA Today 301.I've updated the article title accordingly. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)22:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We've discussed this in depth on the WikiProject, sponsorship names that change often are not generally COMMONNAMES. Please discuss there if you intend to move these pages, as we have established a consensus there. Thanks for your contributions!glman(talk)01:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that local consensus doesn't overrule Wikipedia policy. SeeWP:CONLEVEL.162 etc.(talk)16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Graz99ers Name Discrepancy

Hello 162! I've noticed that you keep reverting the name change back to "Graz 99ers" while stating secondary sources use the space. It makes more sense to remove the space in the team's name since the ICE Hockey League, the Champions Hockey League, and the team itself spell it this way. If you believe you are correct, feel free to submit it to a higher Wiki moderator.

Take care!

GasganoWasHere(talk)15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@GasganoWasHere:Hi, thank you for your contributions. While you are encouraged to beWP:BOLD,such pagemoves should be discussed if they are not uncontroversial. SeeWP:RM.I've reverted the article back to itsWP:STABLEtitle. Repeatedly bold moving the article is bad etiquette. See alsoWP:OFFICIALandWP:COMMONNAMEas to why "Graz99ers" is not necessarily the best title.162 etc.(talk)15:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making and your valid reasoning behind it; however, it does seem a bit odd that you consider it bad etiquette for my edits while I presented an actual reason behind my suggested edit. I appreciate the reasons you have provided, and I will definitely remember that during future edits. I'll leave the page move alone since I see no point in us continually reverting each other's edits. I have no ill will towards you or your actions, but I would like to provide a piece of constructive criticism.

Please provide your valid reasoning during your initial page moves reversions. Doing such will eliminate any confusion with the initial editor and will cease any back-and-forth reversions.

Take care, and I hope you have a great autumn!

GasganoWasHere(talk)17:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please seeWP:BRD.I urge you to familiarize yourself withWP:RMas well. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)18:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

somebody Save Me

Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia.

Regardingyour reverttoSomebody Save Me (disambiguation):based on the way"Save Me" (Remy Zero song)(the song, not the article) uses the refrain "somebody save me", i thought that linewasthe title, and i imagine numerous other folks make the same mistake. Maybe enough of us that we shouldignore all rulesagainst including partial title matches in disambiguation pages? May i revert your revert?

Wishing you safe, happy, productive editing.

--173.67.42.107(talk)03:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contributions. While I understand your edit's intent, it would be quite impractical to clutter dabpages with every misheard lyric or partial title match. While some very prominent examples may warrant mention (Young Hearts/Young Turks (song)comes to mind), I don't see the Remy Zero song on that level. See alsoWP:D.162 etc.(talk)16:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

El Flaco

Hello, 162 etc.,

Could you put some more identifying information on this disambiguation page? Typically, disambiguation pages aren't simply a list of names but have some information about each person, like their birth year, nationality and occupation. There is no way to see on this page what "El Flaco" even refers to much less let a reader understand why this was a term applied to these people without going to each article listed. Thank you for seeing to this when you get the time.Liz^Read!Talk!20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Zapp Band Talk page redirect

You seemed to have erroneously moved the talk page of this article to the disambiguation talk page? I'm not entirely sure what has happened here. The talk page for the main article that was previously there has been deleted, and redirects to the disambiguation for 'Zapp', thusly removing the main article's importance ratings from the R&B and musicians wikigroups. Please can you revert?Zedd1997(talk)15:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Zapp (band)has been moved toZapp.The talkpage seems to have been missed in the move; I've now fixed this. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia.162 etc.(talk)16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also restored the hatnote toZapp (disambiguation)in the lead; seeWP:HATDAB.162 etc.(talk)16:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)