Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

Move of Grenoble Alps University to Université Grenoble AlpesEdit

Hello Amakuru, I was looking over the move discussion for Grenoble Alps University to Université Grenoble Alpes, and I would like to suggest reopening the discussion.

It seems that some relevant evidence was not taken into account, which is that both Reuters [1] and The Times [2] refer to the university as "Grenoble Alpes University". This puts into question what seems to be the basis for the move, which is that there is no established English usage.

Also, even if we were to agree that there is no established English usage, I'd query the manner in which Wikipedia policy on using English in article titles was applied here. The policy describes an example involving valley names: For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. By analogy, I suggest we should use the English "University" rather than the French "Université", even for a university that is little-known in the English-speaking world.

Please keep in mind that "University" is the overwhelming usage in the titles of English-language Wikipedia articles about universities in countries that use other languages. For example, the German university article titles use "University" rather than "Universität", and the Spanish university article titles use "University" rather than "Universidad", etc. This, even though a Google search on most of those university names would overwhelmingly return the domestic-language versions.

These points, about how to apply the "use English" policy, and the established practice for university article titles on Wikipedia, were not thoroughly addressed in the move discussion.

Thank you kindly for your consideration of this issue. MyPOV (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Morning @MyPOV: and thanks for your message. The move discussion you mention is more than two years old, so it would not make sense to re-open the original discussion at this stage. However, if you have new information to bring to the discussion, it would be fine to open a new discussion to propose moving the article back to its previous title. Just follow the instructions at WP:RM to kick that off. It would usually be polite to ping all previous participants in the discussion as well, so that they have a chance to evaluate the new evidence too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply @Amakuru:. I will do as you suggest! Kind regards, MyPOV (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The South Korean articles like US articlesEdit

I need you help, why the almost all South Korean article on Wikipedia use American date Format (MDY Format) like US figures rather than British date format (DMY Format) ? 111.94.241.4 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@111.94.241.4: where an article has particular ties to either the US or the UK, we would use the date format relevant to that country. However, articles regarding South Korea are not tied particularly to any English-speaking country, so we do not have an automatic preference on which format to use for them. That being the case, the guideline at MOS:DATEVAR applies - namely, that we should stick with the format used in the first non-stub version of the article. I'm guessing that as the US has a higher number of editors than the UK, and probably a higher population of Koreans too, the US format has tended to be used more often than the UK. Unless someone has actually gone through and changed them without good reason, we should just stick with the status quo. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the South Korean article to British date format (DMY Format), but returned again to American date format (MDY Format), all my efforts were in vain 111.94.241.4 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

i feel it's very strange only Asian continent like South Korea and Japan articles use American date format (MDY Format) rather than British date format (DMY Format) make the feel angry ? 111.94.241.4 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I know the Guessing the User to created Article of South Korean Figures likes American date format (MDY Format) not British date format (DMY Format) is Kenny htv and Alexanderlee they are deliberated the created article to famous of the world and be approved like US ? 111.94.241.18 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

prep 2 > queue 2Edit

Whoops, I didn't realize until after I'd moved to queue that you were working on it! Sorry! Did I screw anything up for you? I was going to start doing the admin checks, then saw you'd edited heavily this morning. --valereee (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee: no, that's fine I was actually done with it anyway. I had been doing checks this morning with a view to uploading it to the queue myself, and had reached the end. Not sure if there's a process for indicating to others that you're actively looking at the checks?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, do you know, I think a question I had about that was the original beginning of the 'kerfuffle' as you called it. :) I was wondering if there was some way to indicate to each other, 'hey, I've checked this one, you don't need to!' so that we didn't replicate one another's work and so others would know that even though I'd moved a prep to queue, I hadn't checked it and wasn't sure I'd have time to. I mean, obviously I can see that you've edited many of these hooks, and that you've also recently edited many of the articles, and you asked a question at dyk talk about a hook you moved out of the set, but for all I know you got called away halfway through or had remaining concerns, since you didn't finalize it with the actual move. I guess it's the actual move that tells other admins, "I'll do/I've done this one." Okay, so good to know you'd finished it, I'll not bother with it, yay! Just got potentially an hour or two of my day back. :D --valereee (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


ClarificationEdit

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Bonadea_is_a_God_of_roman_religion._Religious_user_names_are_prohibited_in_all_wikis_including_wikipedia.So_Bonadea_user_page_was_deleted.Bonadea_name_was_included_in_Black_list_%22Bonadea%E2%80%9D_user_name_has_been_banned_from_editing_in_all_wikis_.&action=history


Please explain Reason for following blocks ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MyBuddha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sword_of_Allah

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

Really religious usernames are not accepted? Rumbacrush (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthem Christmas treeEdit

Hi, thanks for your tweaks on the hook, but if there were 25,000 ornaments on this tree, the hook should say so. Also, it is incorrect to say "this year" when the news about 5,000 ornaments was published in 2018. I'd like MB to work with us on a revised hook before this goes live. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: alright. Fine by me. Shall we leave it in the set for now, since it's a special occasion hook?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. Hope to get this cleared up within a day. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Yoninah:, incidentally the 5,000 ornaments this year is citable - e.g. [3]... I found that one in my searches and thought the source for the figures was already this year. I agree that there may be a much better way to formulate it though, let me know as and when you want me to update it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe there were 25,000 ornaments on the tree in 2012 despite the source because it was reported in the years before and after - 5,000, at least 5,000, around 6000, etc. That report probably meant 5,000 ornaments and 20,000 lights; it doesn't make sense that the tree had 5x the number of decorations one year. The hook is not about a specific year's tree, it is about the reoccuring installation that always has many thousands of ornaments. MB 20:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, what do you think of this:

  • @MB: if you think it was a typo, then your alt is okay with me. But do you want to say "lights" instead of "bows"? Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MB: @Yoninah: my main doubt about the wording is that it seems to imply that there is only one tree, rather than a series of separate trees. The hook above kind of works OK in the absence of the photo, because you can interpret it as just referring to this year's incarnation of the tree, which is indeed the tallest in Arizona right now, and is decorated with the ornaments and bows as specified. But with the photo of a 2014 tree, it gets a bit more confused. It's not really true to say that the 2014 tree "is decorated with at least 5,000 ornaments and bows", because that tree is long-gone and has presumably been disposed of by now, or replanted. Something along the lines of:
  • ALT3 ... that the Anthem Christmas tree (pictured), Arizona's tallest every year, is decorated with at least 5,000 ornaments and bows?
    would be a better fit for me. Not perfect and wording could be improved, but at least it removes the confusion I mention above. Or happy to consider alternatives involving the current bold link. Unless you think I'm mistaken...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I really don't see the confusion since a Christmas tree, by the common definition at least, is something decorated each year at Christmas. The Anthem Christmas tree can be figuratively "the series of trees" and simultaneously the individual trees each year, just like the the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is "one thing" but literally a different tree each year - a live cut Chistmas tree is understood to be used only one season and replaced. I think the first hook above flows more naturally. And Yoninah, I don't think lights is correct - the source referenced above uses "5,000 ornaments and bows", so we can't go wrong using that exact wording. 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, if Yoninah is happy with it then I won't object. At least the reader will get to the correct information when they click through to the article anyway. I've set it to the version you suggest above for now. If any other suggestions or objections are raised, we can always edit it again later. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, I understand your confusion, and agree that your hook solves the issue. I'm just concerned that the same editor who added repetitive wording to the original hook to clarify what "tallest" refers to will come by and tweak your hook too. That's why I had piped the whole bolded subject to the tallest Christmas tree in Arizona, which in fact is pretty eye-catching. Personally I think the hook is clear about what it's talking about as being tallest, but it has to be crystal clear so the people at ERRORS won't intervene. Pinging @MB: Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's GreetingsEdit

  Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: many thanks, and a very merry Christmas to you too. That's a great picture for the Wiki-Card, and interesting to read about it in DYK today.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, AmakuruEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Amakuru, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy HolidaysEdit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Seasons GreetingsEdit

  Merry Christmas
Sending you best wishes. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

@Nosebagbear: @DBigXray: @Whispyhistory: @TheSandDoctor: many thanks for all the above greetings, and wishing you all a very merry Christmas and New Year as well. Looking forward to building the encyclopaedia together in 2020 and beyond!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers to the spirit of collaboration and the good times ahead. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019Edit

CAA itncEdit

Hi, I think there are sufficient comments to post it one way or the other. Are the admins unable to decide which way to post it?--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 02:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RDEdit

Happy 2020!
 

Seeing you active: I left already several emergency calls about recent deaths no longer being recent. Could you perhaps move some, or at least mark ready. I think of Peter Schreier, but see many others waiting as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, there and many times before! Today, it's Harry Kupfer. Looking forward to 2020 with your presence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 
Happy New Year!
Hello Amakuru:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Need Help to remove redirect link from Drift.comEdit

Hi I need your help to remove redirect link from this page Drift.com. Someone redirected it to its founder David Cancel page. Kindly check it and help me to fix the issues. Anchan Balti --WikiMaster 20:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!Edit

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

binomial nomenclatureEdit

Hello, I am Arabic, why English Wikipedia uses Latin names in articles on animals such as helicoprion, Thylacoleo, Megalania, Thank you 88محمد88المياحي88 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to the 2020 WikiCupEdit

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).--Hanberke (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your closure of the RM on "Capital, Volume I", "Capital, Volume II" and "Capital, Volume III"Edit

Why did you close the discussion and move the articles? The disussion had not reached a consensus, and the arguments that I had made for keeping the current names had not been addressed. ThessalonianR (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThessalonianR: the discussion had been open for more than a month, and other than you no other participant opposed the move (following Dekimasu's striking of their earlier oppose). Your opposition was noted, but others in the discussion responded to it, and overall consensus was that the move should go ahead. Since you've queried the close, I've added some extra commentary explaining the close, which I hope will make some sense for you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I've read the comments you made on the talk page. You say that "the point about the mixed languages was answered by SMcC", but if you read the discussion you will see that the only one who made such a point was SMcCandlish himself and that he did not respond to the actual points that I made. You also claim that consensus was reached on the common name. It is of course the case that more people claimed that Das Kapital is the common name and that I was "outvoted", but no evidence for the claim was presented and unsubstantiated claims surely carry much less weight. I presented several pieces of evidence in both this discussion and the previous one at Talk:Das Kapital#Requested move 22 November 2019 showing that Capital is the common name. WP:RMCI states that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." I contend that you have not done this. ThessalonianR (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ThessalonianR: yes, you're right that Requested Move discusssions are not straight votes, and each point is examined through the light of policy. But that doesn't mean the discussions aren't votes at all. There were seven comments in support of the move, which when added to the nomination makes eight in favour and most of them very experienced editors. And when looking at what they said through the lens of community consensus in general, the consistency argument, which is one of the five core WP:CRITERIA of the page naming policy, is sufficient on its own to make those eight support votes valid. I understand that you're disappointed with the outcome, I've been in that position myself before where the result didn't match the points I'd made, but ultimately I don't think anyone would have closed this discussion differently and I recommend that you accept the outcome and move on. Regards  — Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If consistency was the deciding issue for you, then I understand your decision. Now all of the articles consistently use the less common name. Outcome accepted, but I may at some point propose a move for all four articles given that the consistency argument would no longer play any role. ThessalonianR (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ThessalonianR: yes, that's certainly an option. I recommend waiting a while before opening this topic again, but if you come back in a few months with a well-presented and strongly-evidenced proposal for all four articles I imagine it would be fine to do that. I note that the original closure at Talk:Das Kapital was actually closed as "No Consensus" by Cwmhiraeth, which is quite interesting given the numerical tally in opposition there. But per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, "no consensus" is not as strong a result as "consensus not to move" which means a fresh RM is more acceptable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hazeltine 2000Edit

Amakuru, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen the ping from this nomination, where Evrik is asking you for your opinion of the two newly proposed hooks based on your prior comments in superseding the tick with a non-approval icon. Please stop by when you get the chance; the review seems to be waiting on your response. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The final step in pulling a hook at DYKEdit

Amakuru, thank you so much for all the prep to queue promotions you've been doing at DYK, and the checking that goes with it. I noticed that you pulled the JoAnne Graf hook today, but didn't quite complete the process, so I took care of the final step for you.

After you've reopened the nomination, the thing you need to do next is to retransclude the nomination template on the Nominations page. The date that should be used (in this case, I used January 5 for Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf) is the date the article was created, its 5× expansion was begun, or it was listed as a Good Article, based on UTC date/time. (If the article was moved from user or draft space to main space, it's the date of that move that serves as "creation" date.) Occasionally, there won't be a section for that exact date on the Nominations page, so you'll need to add a date header just above the nomination you're transcluding.

Sometimes, if not retranscluded, the reopened nominations get forgotten about, since they aren't visible to people who didn't already know about them, including potential new reviewers. I've seen nominations neglected for weeks or months, because no one could see that they weren't getting any attention.

Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: oh, that's strange - I thought there had been an update to the DYK bot to take care of that automatically. Perhaps it is not working correctly. Thanks, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No, no bot for this final step, I'm afraid. It's only ever been a manual task, like when transcluding the initial nomination on the Nominations page. The bot will delete promoted or rejected nominations from the Nominations and Approved pages, and move approved nominations from the Nominations page to the Approved one, but that's it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Nothing's getting me annoyed here any longer but we never ever ever have two-sentence blurbs at ITN! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: ha yes, that thought did occur to me as well when I saw it, but I decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Let me have a look if it can be rewritten. Welcome back, BTW, to your new life without bizarre and contradictory editing restrictions!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Cheers! FWIW the speculation shouldn't really be there at all, even in its "denial" form, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1Edit

Hi, are you clearing Prep 1 since promoting to Queue 1? Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I hadn't noticed this query here, so I cleared Prep 1 and upped the next prep to 2 a little while ago. Amakuru, I hope that doesn't mess things up for your process, but it's generally not a good idea to have the same set in two places at once (in this case Prep 1 and Queue 1) for very long; people get confused by it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: oh, no that's fine. I just forgot to do it. Apologies and thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because why not?Edit

  Have a cheeseburger Colonel sanders123 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Colonel sanders123: oh, that looks very tasty. Thanks very much! Wishing you a very happy Tuesday...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tony GarnettEdit

 On 14 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Garnett, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Causeway Street ElevatedEdit

Please see my comments at Talk:Causeway_Street_Elevated#Requested_move_25_December_2019. --В²C

WRIQ/WIQR MovesEdit

Kudos on the moves on these articles. I was about to put in a request with a resident radio station article updater, Mlaffs, when I saw you had already made the changes. Well done! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:39 on January 16, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: no probs, glad to help. They were requested at WP:RM/TR and I picked them up... hopefully all done correctly, as I have no clue about these radio stations myself    — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me. :) Radio is my area too, but I leave the moving to Mlaffs. :) Nice work! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:14 on January 16, 2020 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

This was rude, arrogant, complacent and tantamount to vandalism as you restored errors to the article. Please consider this as a warning. Please do not repeat this behaviour. Thanks. The Huhsz (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Huhsz: there's no need to be so aggressive. You made numerous cosmetic wording changes to an article which had been vetted and approved at an FAC review, which it is acceptable for me to challenge, particularly when done on the day of its appearance on the main page. What you consider improvements to the article aren't necessarily what everyone else does, and I didn't consider your changes to be an improvement. For example, your removal of "the village of...", which you also requested at WP:ERRORS, removes information which I consider useful for understanding the location. If you have specific things that you'd like to discuss and amend, which aren't obvious errors, then please do so at the talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
No, sorry. I've re-reviewed your edit. If you think that was "cosmetic wording changes", you merely tell me that you know nothing about prose quality, and nothing about the Manual of Style, adherence to which is a requirement of Featured articles. Perhaps you didn't know that either. That was unequivocally a bad and a harmful edit. I'll be keeping an eye on your edits from now on and if I see you do anything else in this line, I assure you you won't enjoy the consequences. Leave things you don't understand alone, please. If you have sufficient ability to read and understand it, you may find the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" to be instructive. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian government resigns on ITNCEdit

Hi, looks like every admin other than you had commented there. It is ready. Can you see if you can post it. --DBigXray 22:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Amakuru. Thanks for taking care of the picture! Unfortunately, some vandal named Amakuru came along and reverted you: Special:Diff/936764451. Would you mind restoring it (and possibly blocking that Amakuru account, definitely up to no good)?   Thanks again! Levivich 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Levivich: good grief, what an absolute scoundrel that Amakuru is! Undoing my good faith actions like that.... I shall block him immediately. Thanks for the heads up    — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    In case Amakuru manages to evade the block, I am ready with my pitchforks at ANI. This ITN disruption has been going on for far too long.--DBigXray 22:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Standard Amakuru.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Very much so. Can't be trusted at all. Every time we think he's turned a corner, he pulls some stunt like this again. I suggest a topic ban from all namespaces except for "Gadget definition talk:", where he's unlikely to do much harm.....  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks! If it wasn't for admin like you, we'd be overrun by Amakurus. Levivich 03:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for help on Glenworth Valley/Popran CreekEdit

Hi Amakura,

adlsm here from the Glenworth Valley/ Popran Creek site that you were on last night for me. Need your help on this one as I am wanting to change the title from Glenworth Valley to Popran Creek as I requested. There are compelling reasons for this change and would appreciate your help on this. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad lsm (talkcontribs) 07:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ad lsm:, and thanks for your message. The instructions for how to request a move are at the page WP:RM. If you do what it says there, the proposal will be listed with your reasons for the move. Then it will be assessed after seven days, based on feedback in the discussion. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)