User talk:Dương Vinh Hoàng
Welcome!
|
Renaming thinhorn sheep
[edit]At Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge and many other articles, why are you changing every instance of "Dall sheep" to "Thinhorn sheep"? The first line of the article Thinhorn sheep says "The thinhorn sheep (Ovis dalli), Dall sheep or Dall's sheep, is a wild sheep native to northwestern North America". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Main article has been moved. I changed to main link Dương Vinh Hoàng (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which brings us to the question of why the article was moved. I see no references supporting the broad use of the name, the article is remarkably poorly referenced. There was no move discussion. Please stop until this is resolved. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rather than continuing to dwell on the mere presence or absence of citations, let's focus on what actually happened here. An IP fouled this all up to start with, giving a rationale of "exactly name in IUCN redlist". That's one thing. This was followed up by an admin, Primefac, doing the actual pagemove with a rationale of "fix copy/paste pagemove". That's entirely another. We do expect a certain level of competency from our admins, correct? Or is this yet another admission that it's okay for admins to go through the motions, have no obligation to perform due diligence beforehand, and perhaps hide behind AGF when there's fallout? More precisely to the point, it's meaningless to state "There was no move discussion" when someone who should have known what they were doing didn't bother to check for that before performing the actual pagemove. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't the place for that discussion, and I wouldn't be too quick to complain about the move without asking Primefac first - but then I'm an admin, and I've had my own moments where I've done something and quickly moved on - and a move isn't an admin-specific action.. Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rather than continuing to dwell on the mere presence or absence of citations, let's focus on what actually happened here. An IP fouled this all up to start with, giving a rationale of "exactly name in IUCN redlist". That's one thing. This was followed up by an admin, Primefac, doing the actual pagemove with a rationale of "fix copy/paste pagemove". That's entirely another. We do expect a certain level of competency from our admins, correct? Or is this yet another admission that it's okay for admins to go through the motions, have no obligation to perform due diligence beforehand, and perhaps hide behind AGF when there's fallout? More precisely to the point, it's meaningless to state "There was no move discussion" when someone who should have known what they were doing didn't bother to check for that before performing the actual pagemove. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddum5347, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.