User talk:Estar8806/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question from Stallionmanukraine (19:23, 1 June 2024)

Hi Thank you for your time sir, I’ve written a page on Dean Swinscoe. Can you just run over it and guide me please. Regards SEB --Stallionmanukraine (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Frost Shevock-Johnson (14:51, 3 June 2024)

Hey, Uhh How Do I Get Started? I Want To Make An Article, About The Arctic Fox Population Decrease. --Frost Shevock-Johnson (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Frost Shevock-Johnson (14:51, 3 June 2024) (2)

Hey, Uhh How Do I Get Started? I Want To Make An Article, About The Arctic Fox Population Decrease. --Frost Shevock-Johnson (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mr.Dwaipayan Choudhury on User:Mr.Dwaipayan Choudhury (04:48, 9 June 2024)

Hi, kindly check out my page --Mr.Dwaipayan Choudhury (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Samxhere on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (14:37, 14 June 2024)

Hello, I'm new here. With so many articles to edit and topics to write on, where do I begin from? --Samxhere (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Grunline (20:25, 14 June 2024)

Hello Estar8806, I want to change the "2011 Chilean Air Force C-212 crash" article's image because there is another image on Commons much better suited for the article, since it depicts the actual aircraft involved in the incident. However I'm unsure if I can just go ahead and do this or if I should ask somewhere else before making such an edit. Thank you very much for your time! --Grunline (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Donut47 (02:18, 16 June 2024)

Hello Estar

I am happy to have opened the account but did not think I would have the right to begin immediately.

Would it be alright if I returned in a week or so ? --Donut47 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from FurahaKamili3 (14:00, 17 June 2024)

Thank you, it is helpful to have a mentor. I plan to edit the Swahili content. I was reviewing Ali Kiba's page I have seen in a table it is written himself, and this is not Swahili. I don't know how I can change it to read Mwenyewe.

Thanks, --FurahaKamili3 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I had an issue with an Article (G11 and A7)

Hello Estar8806,

I had an issue with an Article (G11 and A7) as it was tagged G11 and A7 and so was speedily deleted. I contacted the Administrator separate times on his talk page and received no response.

I have now gone through the deletion review as I believe the subject (Moruf Oseni) is notable and qualifies to have a Wiki page. I also requested that the article be put in draft space so I can fix the G11 issue and I have informed the Administrator of the deletion process.

How long does the deletion review process take? Do you have any pointers on how I can approach this? Do let me know. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mtpe2005 (14:02, 20 June 2024)

Hi, I am interested for which topics I can write about? Is there like limitation or smth? --Mtpe2005 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Brian Thando (17:08, 25 June 2024)

Hello, how can I write an article on Wikipedia --Brian Thando (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Brian Thando

Brian Thando is a Ndebele musician, politician and music producer born, 1996 on the 30th of March in Plumtree District Hospital, Plumtree Town, Zimbabwe. His first album was released in 2020 entitled uThando. His music took a drastic turn when he released a political song endorsing the self determination of Mthwakazi, a Zimbabwean region dominated by Northern Ndebele, Sotho, Venda, Kalanga, Xhosa tribes. Brian Thando (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gabrielavallim (22:57, 25 June 2024)

Hi, dear. Am I allowed to write people's biographies? --Gabrielavallim (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Pandeykumar2008 on Kanchipuram district (04:29, 27 June 2024)

I want Pie chart how can I get --Pandeykumar2008 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Arju rafi on Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers (09:12, 28 June 2024)

I need a hack a Facebook id please help me --Arju rafi (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Facebook id

hack kora dan Arju rafi (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sivaalaagrsami (10:29, 28 June 2024)

Hello Estar,

Hope you doing great :-)

Just I want to know why The RmKV page is deleted and how to correct the content? Could you please help me to sort out that? --Sivaalaagrsami (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kreator'scp on Talk:SCP Foundation (23:05, 2 July 2024)

Como crio um SCP? --Kreator'scp (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sherjeel Oneil (23:28, 2 July 2024)

Hello, I'm Sherjeel O'Neil, a music producer, multi-instrumentalist and digital artist. I have a production channel, numerous bands and artists (with legit external articles and links). I'm trying to set up wiki articles for myself, the production channel and my artists and bands.

Is it cool if I use one account to create them all? Would you like to suggest how do I go about this? --Sherjeel Oneil (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Shahraihansani (04:46, 9 July 2024)

Hello! I hope you're doing great! I am Shah Raihan Sani from Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Professionally, I do Arabic Calligraphy, Digital Art and Content Writing & Editing. I am a big fan of Wikipedia since 2014 when I started my career as an writer for a magazine. I often visit Wikipedia for information and I find out that Wikipedia is extremely helpful for my works. Now, I want to create an article about myself, I have watched a couple of videos on YouTube, but I still think I need to learn the processes properly. I hope you will help me with this by providing all the necessary functions that comes up. Thanks and have a nice day! --Shahraihansani (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from AnnWIKI9 (00:32, 10 July 2024)

Great. Thank you. I just want to add an article I have about the Davis Wildlife Care Association to the page of the guy who co-founded it. Any suggestions on approach? --AnnWIKI9 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Donut47 (16:24, 11 July 2024)

Hello!

So I am interested in the career of Byron Randall, a US West Coast painter who died in 1999. I have prepared an article which I would like to submit to you for editing or just upload to Wikipedia but am unfamiliar as to how to proceed. Could you please help?

Robert --Donut47 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Autobiography

Please how can i edit my autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godswill magus jr (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Godswill magus jr, welcome to wikipedia! Per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY you cannot write an article about yourself or pay someone to do so other than to correct unambiguous errors in already existing articles. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Article

If i cant write about myself how will people know more detail about my life,work etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godswill magus jr (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Godswill magus jr Only people who meet certain WP:NOTABILITY requirements have an article here on Wikipedia. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Photos

How can i upload photos and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godswill magus jr (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ngọc Lụa (20:30, 18 July 2024)

Hello! I actually created this account because Wikipedia notified me in order to make a donation. I actually have edited on this website anonymously, mostly to fix grammar mistakes and properly structure the sentences on topics that interests me. My hope is to be able to keep using Wikipedia and contribute however way I can.

Introduction aside, I have only a few questions. So it turns out, the user names I wanted (I tried multiple) were taken. Why does Wikipedia not allow repeats? And as for my last question, as I'm still new here, do you have tips and tricks on how to avoid missteps? I'm a clumsy person and I often click the edit page by accident and I'm probably not the only one. But I hope I can be more dexterous to avoid doing that again in the future. --Ngọc Lụa (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from LR.127 (23:11, 21 July 2024)

Hello! I made an edit to Quốc Trung as per the advert tag there. I'm concerned that I might have removed too much material, and would appreciate a second pair of eyes to review my edit. Cheers. --LR.127 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from LunaPudding23 (15:46, 22 July 2024)

Hi Mentor, I am having difficulty with the article draft I am trying to submit.

I have since re-edited today, but would you be able to help with any further pointers on where I am going wrong?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Dan_Keeling#Noble_Rot_restaurants --LunaPudding23 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ebock7 (07:50, 23 July 2024)

Hello, I need more clarity in terms of cyber technology support; I'm interested in that so you need to help me. --Ebock7 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ebock7 on Facebook onion address (07:56, 23 July 2024)

Hello, how do I create a Facebook account that cannot be blocked and tracked? --Ebock7 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Itshndexe (15:38, 23 July 2024)

hello, can you please teach me how to edit an article? i am new here and dont know much about wikipedia --Itshndexe (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Alester Thomas Abega (17:02, 26 July 2024)

How do I have my own Wikipedia --Alester Thomas Abega (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Milan.khoj (10:35, 27 July 2024)

नमस्कार --Milan.khoj (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wolfpack1999 (02:53, 29 July 2024)

Greeting mentor, need your help to review my latest edit on wikipedia. Thank you. --Wolfpack1999 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from YerzhanU (19:58, 27 July 2024)

Hi! What to do if we have argument over an edit in wiki? How can it be resolved? --YerzhanU (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@YerzhanU, I apologize for my late response. Simply discussing the issue with the editor(s) involved in a civil and constructive manner is the best way to resolve a dispute. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Willw915 on User:Willw915/sandbox (03:19, 30 July 2024)

Hello here’s my question. How do I create a citation and figure out if this is contributing overall to the ongoing account issues which have plugged my iOS accounts for years? --Willw915 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Willw915 I'm sorry, I don't quite understand, could you please clarify? estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wolfpack1999 (07:19, 31 July 2024)

Greeting mentor, need to add a article on 'Think out of the box' i have problem add an image due to the strict license

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Wolfpack1999/sandbox if everything went well, i will add on the official wikipedia site --Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wolfpack1999 if the image is copyrighted, you simply cannot upload it to wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information on this topic. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, Estar8806,

Before moving an article, please check "What links here" to see if there are any redirects to an article. If there are, then PLEASE leave a redirect when you move an article.

If you look at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, you can see what happens, lots and lots of broken redirects. Luckily, another administrator took the time to correct all of these broken redirects so they now point to the right page. I'm not sure why many page moves don't like to leave a redirect behind when they move an article but it can really mess things up if there are redirects pointing to the article that was moved. If you do leave a redirect when you move an article, Wikipedia's bots will correct any existing redirects. Please consider doing this in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, look at this edit...you moved it to someone with a completely different name. Be careful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Oh my gosh I'm so sorry, my wires must've gotten crossed in my haste. Thanks for the catch, it shouldn't happen again. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Zenithxxx (14:44, 1 August 2024)

Hi Estar, recently I got into some issues on the Gandhara wiki and wanted your opinion(3rd opinion) / What should be done on my side.

The issue was the lead, and a user named Sutyarashi had reverted an updated lead I had made which had been established on the page for quite some time (I think nearly 2-3 months is when I had posted it) but yesterday he had reverted back to the old lead from 3 months ago before my update due to 'Size issues' when both leads were similar in size. I had established a talk page discussing what issues he had were and how I could improve the lead rather than reverting all of it and I had taken a point of his into consdieration when applying my 3rd revert. He had stated on the talk page that my sources were poor however Thomas Trautmann was a credible author specialising in the field so I didnt take this into consideration as in my opinion the source was already good.

But then quite a few hours after our talk discussion (which Sutyarashi didnt reply to later on) another user had reverted back again stating 'reverted back to more stable lead', this is where I wanted to speak to you about, is this a valid reason and is he allowed to do this considering I had set up a talk page (which he didnt participate in) and also didnt give points for improvement in my lead so I dont think he assumed good faith and it wasnt an improvement but rather made the lead worse. Also am I allowed to revert it again as the 3RR rule with him has only just started.but with Sutyarashi its been done. --Zenithxxx (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kaganya (17:29, 1 August 2024)

Hello how do i load a picture --Kaganya (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Add a new content to sandbox

need your help to review and see if there is anything need to be amend

User:Wolfpack1999/sandbox Wolfpack1999 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Marian bandala on Talk:Corruption in the Philippines (12:11, 3 August 2024)

Hello i have a question here and can you pls answer it, is it true the corruption and nepotism dynasties can perpetuate corruption and nepotism, limiting political competition, and hindering good governance --Marian bandala (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from DougMontague (18:08, 5 August 2024)

Hello. I created a Wiki account to remove the left pane from the articles I'm trying to read. I am badly visually impaired and the left pane clutters up the page. The constant expansion of links also makes reading difficult. I appreciate the scope and depth of the articles but in my case less is more. I'm not even sure how to interact with this 'conversation'. Help please and be patuent with me. --DougMontague (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Adamreeez (11:08, 6 August 2024)

why wikipedia removing my editing lines --Adamreeez (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Page Moves, again

Hello, Estar8806,

PLEASE leave a redirect when you move a page. Take a look at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, this is the result when you don't, we have broken redirects. Luckily, an admin took the time to repair all of these but you should have looked at "What links here" and if there are redirects to a page, then you should either manually fix all of these redirects yourself or leave a redirect when you move a page.

I see that I've already brought this issue to your attention a few wees ago (see User talk:Estar8806#Page moves) and your conduct hasn't changed.

I'm also concerned at all of the messages on your User talk page that you have never taken the time to respond to. If you can't, I'm considering removing your advanced permissions. You shouldn't have them if you fail to respond to editors that have questions about your editing decisions. I'll wait if you can assure me that you will reply to these inquiries and start doing a better job in the future. If you fail to respond to this message, I'll take that lack of response as a "No". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. I really took to heart what you said a few weeks ago and was intentionally very careful with the moves I did today. Which page was left with broken redirects? First government of Hassan Rouhani I made sure to check that all redirects were corrected. And for Second government of Hassan Rouhani I left a redirect, or at least I intended to.

In response to your second point, I don't see any questions regarding my editing decisions. Only mentee questions. I certainly should take a step back from mentoring. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wiisstlo (23:35, 15 August 2024)

How do I report an article written in bad faith and poor sources for deletion? The creator of the article is also gatekeeping editing. --Wiisstlo (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wiisstlo. The proper process is through WP:AFD. Could you refer me to the article in question so I can take a look? estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Paetongtarn Shinawatra

Hello, there are still many people who are confused about the date of her inauguration as Prime Minister. Although there will be a royal command reception ceremony on 18 August 2024 in the Royal Gazette it is written that it is dated 16 August 2024 which is the same day that the House of Representatives voted to approve the appointment. Preime TH (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This is different from many countries where the term of office is counted from the date Sworn in, but in the case of Thailand it will be from the date it is published in the Royal Gazette, which is 16 August 2024. Preime TH (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Estar8806, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

MIDDLE INITIAL

I added it because the middle initial was needed. 88.226.105.24 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. Do you have evidence to support this? estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The middle initial was added to every official document. I didn't put the middle initial for Barack Obama's name because his name is not written as Barack H. Obama in any official document. But everywhere from Trump's White House Archive to his social media usernames, from the documents of the company he owns to the ballot papers, he is written as Donald J. Trump not Donald Trump, and also on the ballot papers and in the White House Archive, Pence's name is written as Michael R. Pence not Mike Pence. So these are the official names. 88.226.105.24 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:OFFICIALNAME, we don't use official names here, we use the more common ones.[1] estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And yes, while President Obama's middle initial was rarely used, President Biden's is used.[2] And you haven't applied that some principle there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I knew it. What I'm trying to tell you is that the common name is already Donald J. Trump. 88.226.105.24 (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence of that. Unless you can prove that with the middle initial is the common name, please stop making mass changes. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

युवा संघर्ष समिति

हमारा संगठन स्वतंत्र विचार पर बढ़ते हुए कार्य करता युवा संघर्ष समिति (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles in infoboxes

Your capitalization of job tiles in Steve Beshear and Janet Mills is contrary to the MoS. There is a footnote on MOS:JOBTITLE that says "Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things", so your claim that title should be capitalized in infoboxes appears to hold no water. In any case, you reverted correct uses of lower case in the running text, and edits to infoboxes should never damage the body of an article. I will restore the proper lower case to these two articles. Chris the speller ^yack 01:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller MOS:JOBTITLES says to capitalize titles, not descriptions. In the context of infoboxes, titles such as Governor of Kentucky, Governor of Maine, President of the United States, etc. are titles and are capitalized in all infoboxes. JOBTITLES also says that titles should be capitalized when followed by a person's name, so "Governor John Smith", for example would be correct. I will admit that you are correct with examples like "former governor John Smith", or "former president Donald Trump" as in that case it is a description and I was in error reverting those edits. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"61st Governor of Kentucky" does not conform to the MoS, which says that caps may be used only when the title "is not preceded by a modifier", and shows the example of "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." Please change the two articles to be in compliance with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 22:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller Key words being "was the", denoting a description, not a title. You yourself referred above to [my] claim that the title should be capitalized in infoboxes. I would highly recommend opening discussion in a more public space on this matter, especially if you would like to equally apply your interpretation of the MoS to all articles rather than these specific two. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If you do not recognize "37th" and "61st" as modifiers, then I will not be able to discuss this with you. Since you disagree that the MoS is correct in calling for lower case in these cases, a good place to complain would be on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES, instead of interfering with editors who are merely correcting articles to get them in line with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 22:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller We clearly have differing interpretations of the MoS. By default, we should return to the standing before a disagreement. I would highly recommend you be the one to open a discussion as you are the one seeking to make changes to these articles. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you should open the discussion since you are the one who is unable to understand the MoS. I have no problem with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 03:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller Claiming I don't "understand" the MOS is very hard to interpret as a WP:GOODFAITH comment. While policies are generally set in stone, guidelines like JOBTITLES are sometimes open to differing interpretations (for example naming guidelines are open to interpretation, hence the existence of WP:RM). That being said, I'll happily open a discussion and ping you in it. :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 17:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from HarrisonSG123!! (21:46, 3 October 2024)

Hi, I am wanting to change the name of article page as the actor is now including their middle name. How do I do this? --HarrisonSG123!! (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @HarrisonSG123!!: To move an article you must to have an autoconfirmed account, that meaning your account must be at least 4 days old and have 10 edits. You could also add a request at WP:RM/TR. If you like, you can just tell me the current article title and what you want it changed to and I will review your request. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Belgian royal family

Hello, Estar8806. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Belgian royal family, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jaxongamer2 on Samsung Wave II S8530 (17:14, 16 October 2024)

How do I add a citation? I have the link and the date but it's saying "Check date values in: |date= (help)". What do I do? --Jaxongamer2 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jaxongamer2: could you write out the full citation here so I can see what the error might be estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 4th, 2010 |title=Samsung announces S8530 Wave II, meet the big-screen edition |url=https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_announces_s8530_wave_ii_meet_the_bigscreen_edition-news-1974.php}}</ref>

I think I wrote the date in the wrong format, if so, what's the right format? Jaxongamer2 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've figured it out, I didn't need to have the "th" after the 4, I will fix this and submit it onto the wiki. Jaxongamer2 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Royal Tours

Hi @Estar8806 can you please link me to the article you referenced that had been made about the 2024 royal tour, in List of Royal Tours of Australia. Many thanks

Also just a quick one you said "the most info here came from generally unreliable sources, such as Facebook" The one inclusion from a Facebook post of the verified federation guard account was just of the information regarding the royal salute given with full honours, all other sources given where sources from the reputable media or official government sites, bar maybe the YouTube clip from ABC news and the Parliamentary Tv page. Got no issue just wondering which sources you where referring to. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Knowledgework69: The page is 2024 royal tour of Australia. None of the sources were egregiously unreliable (well except Facebook and X), there were just better sources out there that are more reliable covered in the article. The two sources I found questionable were the nightly and the north west star. I didn't do a deep dive into them since most if not all of the info they sourced was a fork from the new separate article, but (and this is not a policy here by any means) I was told that a good rule of thumb for news sources is that those that show a lot of ads (like the latter) are generally not too reliable. As for Facebook, and also the X source which I've just noticed looking back, social media sites are generally considered to be unreliable unless it's WP:ABOUTSELF BLP info, and even then they're treated with a great deal of caution.

In a nutshell, anything that I removed from the section on the main page that isn't covered on the separate page feel free to add back. Though a lot of it I feel like was specific details about their engagements on the last day that just felt rather irrelevant and inconsequential, but that's just my personal opinion that only carries as much weight as you chose to give it. :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi yeah no worries was just wondering, ill probably add a few things back when I get round to it. I've also gone ahead and linked the royal tours page to your article in the appropriate place. Knowledgework69 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Closer of Nationality law of North Macedonia

Thanks for your detailed explanation on closing the RM on Nationality law of North Macedonia. I will be as short as possible and to the point by adding a few key points you may have overlooked.

I have to provide this scientific evidence to you and ask you if you would like to change your mind about the incorrect closure because you were under the wrong impressions that this special statement for page titles was part of WP:MOSMAC although the reality is that the sentence was pushed against community consensus by a single user who tried to receive an unclear consensus with a discussion in a small group of editors, who apparently didn't agree with that statement. Although that editor was told that the sentence was incorrect, the sentence remained there until today causing problems.

If you disagree with me, I will open a move review and ping the closers of the RFC 2019 to tell us their opinion. Thanks for your time.

1. North Macedonian passport is not the only case that the adjective is used

Some more examples: 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election, 2024 North Macedonian presidential election, and 2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election

2. Your reason is I find no consensus to override the community consensus formed in the 2019 RfC to avoid using adjectival forms related to North Macedonia.

You know that local consensus cannot override community consensus WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and based on that your reasoning is on the right direction.

However, you are under the wrong impression that the community consensus suggests us to avoid adjectives from titles. Please look at the top of 2019-RFC, and in the Green box, click "show". There you will see that there was found consensus and Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia..

You tried to do the right thing, but you managed to accidentally override the community consensus.

3. I know that after reading this you wonder why WP:MOSMAC tells us to avoid adjectives in titles, although this is not the decision of the community?

It took a while and I am happy to share my research results with you:

Talk:2019 North Macedonian presidential election#Article title move includes a discussion about the statement Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether started by an editor, FlavrSavr, who was involved in the RFC 2019 and who opposed "North" in all cases (shown in the votes in all questions).

Editors Teratix and Number 57 participated in the long discussion with FlavrSavr.

FlavrSavr said: The actual policy clearly states that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. and specifies in which cases "North Macedonian" may be used.

Number57 said: Then whoever has formulated the policy has ignored the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps this needs to be flagged up at WP:AN or somewhere, as it's not really acceptable for a clear outcome from a community discussion to be ignored when translating it into policy.

FlavrSavr then responded to Number 57 with a long message that includes: The sentence in question was proposed by me and inspired by Argean's and other comments in the RfC - this really was a no-brainer for most of us as it seems to be a natural and neutral resolution, and this wasn't opposed by anyone.

MJL (main contributor of WP:MOSMAC) joined the discussion and added: Actually, on a second read through, I have become very concerned by Number 57's comments.

Future Perfect at Sunrise joined the discussion and added: The sentence in question ... was not covered by the original RfC but was written into the draft unilaterally by MJL – certainly with the best of intentions. and ... And if there are groups of articles where local editors consider adjectival titles preferable for WP:CONSISTENCY reasons, we definitely have a problem and I'm not sure at all we should treat that WP:NCMAC sentence as authoritative.

qedk (one of the three editors in the closing of RFC 2019) commented: Since, the LOCALCONSENSUS surrounding the inclusion of that singular sentence has certainly changed, either it should be removed, or reframed in a manner, where it doesn't sound like policy. And given, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicity states — Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, this particular statement cannot be held above the policy formed at the behest of the community. With thanks.

Argean joined the discussion and said: This particular sentence was proposed by FlavrSavr to be added in Future Perfect at Sunrise's first draft and was never questioned by anybody until now.

To remind you that FlavrSavr was involved in the RFC 2019 and opposed "North" in all cases, so the idea of adding this special statement to WP:MOSMAC was a way to avoid the community consensus as much as possible and was proposed by an editor who disagrees with "North", and this was done only after the RFC 2019. Not fair at all in my opinion.

One of the last comments of this discussion was by qedk, who is one of the three closers of the RFC 2019.

qedk said: To note for posterity's sake, the post-RfC drafting was mostly done by FPaS and MJL, and with SilentResident, Argean, Khajidha, FlavrSavr chipping in. Now, if out of those we already have two editors (FPaS and Khajidha in contention, on different things), you cannot say that the LOCALCONSENSUS persists. Noting again, that Teratix and Number 57 do not see it as an accurate summarization as well. I do not mean to question it when you say that it's in good intent and that it's meant to prevent conflicts but what I am saying is, you cannot have it override community consensus, which in this case, was clear and not a LOCALCONSENSUS.

Thank you for your time. I know you had the best intentions but you were trapped by this sentence like me a month ago, when I proposed Denar of North Macedonia. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Open Free Eye! Thank you so much for taking the time to write out this very thoughtful statement, it's much appreciated. I'll primarily address your latter two points, as your first point is correct and is something I had attempted to look for more examples of, but simply failed.

For starters, regarding the 2019 RfC, the portion you've quoted is taken from point 3. State-associated and other public entities: What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement? (emphasis my own)

I see you also researched into how the line cited in my closing statement and how it may have come from the contributions of one editor. The "detailed consensus" of the RfC makes no specific references to article titles versus prose. The line added by MJL was there fore not explicitly written from the community consensus, but it was also not expressly against it. Further, the line has been part of the guideline for five years and "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted".

All of that boils down to the reason I opted not to relist this discussion, because I did (and still do) not see how a consensus could be formed when there wasn't even one existing in the RM in question anyway. And that all leads into the last part of my closing statement: ... there could be a need to revisit that RfC in the near future., which also relates ...you were trapped by this sentence like me a month ago, when I proposed Denar of North Macedonia. I hope you understand my thought process with that closure a little better now, and I'd be happy to make specific amendments to my closing statement to better clarify if you'd like, but I stand by my interpretation that no consensus was formed and my belief that no consensus could form given the state of the discussion and the state of overarching consensus, policies, and guidelines regarding the same topic. Thank you, estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

A) I don't agree with the implicit consensus on a sentence that was clearly disputed with the evidence I gave you. I cannot accept it because North Macedonian is used on the titles of another 5 pages that show no implicit consensus was ever accepted about this statement pushed by a single user. Does no action by any user imply scientific evidence?

B) Denar of North Macedonia was opposed by Local hero, who put the argument for your decision on the table. Do you think these double standards by Local hero are the right way to build an encyclopedia?

C) In the move review for "Denar of North Macedonia" I mentioned this special statement for page titles, but it was not accepted by anybody. Do you think the way this small number of editors participating in the move requests and move reviews approach the situation in a scientific way? I see double standards.

In my opinion we should set scientific evidence as our top priority. The low participation in move requests cannot override scientific evidence. Anyways. If this is your last word, I will open the move review because of the double standards. Thanks for you time! Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Nationality law of North Macedonia

An editor has asked for a Move review of Nationality law of North Macedonia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Open Free Eye (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Helloiamdaniel1 (00:24, 4 November 2024)

can you make a page on Wikipedia by yourself? --Helloiamdaniel1 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Helloiamdaniel1! Yes, you can make a wikipedia page by yourself (though it cannot be about yourself). To do so, follow the steps at WP:Articles for Creation. Please be sure to keep in mind the three core policies here on Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. Happy editing! estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Review of Gun show loophole page move

Hello, I hope you are doing well. You recently closed a live discussion before the full 7 days passed here Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Requested_move_2_November_2024. Yes, it is true that this was a second RM seeking to change the title of an article that previously had just had a closed RM, but even in the prior RM there was majority !vote support for the move. I did not contest that one though because the consensus emerged in that RM that a new, better title had emerged as probably the best one to be considered from the beginning. So I was absolutely under no circumstances trying to engage in WP:GAMENAME, but was merely operating off of the newly emerged consensus which demonstrated a better, newer title. In the end, even that title might have lost out, and there would NOT be a third RM, but closing the second RM seemed to me to be premature, especially given that new editors were participating that did not participate on the first RM discussion. Please consider opening the RM back up and extending the date for it to be considered back to include a full 7 days as originally and normally allowed for. Thank you very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn please see WP:NOTAVOTE - it does not matter how many people !voteed to support the RM. I see no reference at all to any support for the title proposed in the second RM, hence WP:GAMENAME, and why the discussion was procedurally closed. The first discussion was closed because the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME, that cannot be overridden by another discussion just because different editors partook in each discussion. The commonname did not change in two hours, give it a few months and then try again if the commonname does change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There were many comments in direct support of the newly proposed title as it is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME that is, at most, in second place by some metrics, but also one that is neutral according to WP:NPOV (therefore arguably superior as an article title) would you like for me to additionally link to many of the comments and to ping editors that commented? I do not want to be accused of WP:CANVAS, so I am asking first. The support for this was pretty substantive and I am a bit surprised it isn't apparent. Also, I reviewed WP:GAMENAME one more time and not even one of the three applies. This isn't just a different spelling or variant, I essentially found that the first proposed name didn't even register on Google Ngram, whereas the second RM ranks close or higher than GSL depending on the timeframe of the data reviewed and depending on whether or not case sensitivity is incorporated into the graphing. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that I am aware that a RM is WP:NOTAVOTE which is why I said "!vote" when I wrote "...majority !vote support for the move...". That is just one metric in deciding to close. I would say that more of the substantive WP policy arguments including WP:COMMONNAME also lean towards the support of the title change, especially when weighted with WP:NPOV and a clearly disputed usage of the title which has been called "misleading" by many editors. Also arguments on the support side, but it just so happens to be that those stronger arguments also came in greater numbers, so it really was weighted to the support side regardless of how you look at it, "vote" or "!vote". Iljhgtn (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want about which way COMMONNAME leans, but the fact of the matter is that the consensus in the first discussion did not agree with you. The second discussion cannot override that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing the first discussion, but the second was about a totally different name. They seem similar, but I made a major mistake in using the "firearm" language in my first RM. I have not really engaged in much of these before, if any, I can't remember, so I apologize if I did not get it all right the first time. I waited it out though until just as it closed, not because I did not get my desired result, but because that is how I thought the process is supposed to operate. Midway through the first discussion I already realized that there was a better title for the article in question, and though personally I feel either article title was an improvement, the second RM was the one that really deserves the full weight and time of real consensus building from the great number of editors. As I have said just now as well, and I will repeat again, I will support whatever the consensus if we can re-open the second RM one final time with "Private gun sales (United States)" being fully discussed through to its conclusion. I really appreciate your consideration and all the hard work these numerous editors have put into these thoughtful discussions. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn It's been clearly proven in both RMs that the proposed change is not the commonname, here are the ngrams once again [3]. Your NPOV argument was rejected in favor of the commonname in the first RM, that's not going to change because you've slightly changed your proposal. And yes actually, it's a textbook example of GAMENAME, which uses the examples of Draft:Ralph Zwogli, Draft:Ralph A. Zwogli, and Draft:Ralph Zwogli (businessman), ie. changing from a natural disambiguator to a parenthetical disambiguator. That's precisely what your second proposal was, a change to a parenthetical disambiguator. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see where the confusion might be now. My apologies for not catching this earlier. I looked at exactly that example about the differing "Ralphs" ("Draft:Ralph Zwogli, Draft:Ralph A. Zwogli, and Draft:Ralph Zwogli (businessman), ie."), and could not see how it possibly was the same or how you or anyone else could interpret it that way, but maybe we are having wires misfire on the nuance of one VERY important DIFFERENT word. That word is "firearms" being changed to "guns". There is no GAMENAME intended in the slightest with that change of word choice, but rather it is a choice that aligns with the second highest NGRAM when compared. When balanced with the OTHER aspects of how a title of a given article is chosen, such as neutrality and clarity considerations for the reader, a very strong argument can be made (and was being made by many editors prior to the second close) that on the aggregate, the close second "Private gun sales (United States)" actually is the best and most WP:PRECISE title.

Lastly, the Google NGRAMs link only provides one case sensitive iteration of "private gun sales" and then "private firearm sales" (and I will point out that "private firearm sales" is entirely irrelevant for our purposes because that is a DIFFERENT term based on the key word of "gun" and "firearm" NOT being interchangeable for the same effect of what this term is referring to and understood in COMMONNAME language usage. Whereas the NGRAM data shows a total of FOUR different case sensitive variations for "Gun show loophole", "gun show loophole", "Gun Show Loophole", and "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" (ALL of which are lower in hits than "private gun sales" in the single case sensitive variant shown, except for the all lower case "gun show loophole", which is slightly higher, though was even closer in 2020, and furthermore has been trending downward for many years, while "private gun sales" has been trending up since). Though I also acknowledge that WP does not lead but follows the reliable sources intrinsic to being an encyclopedia, this is what the "support" side editors were presenting evidence for not just as a forward looking trend, but backwards, forwards, and the present time. Thank you! Iljhgtn (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, I see I did not catch that the original request used "firearms" while the newer used "guns". That being said, the ngrams only show one iteration of "private gun sales" because only one exists if you search for it in all caps, for example, it returns zero results [4] estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be like a Google NGRAM being run for "Firearm show loophole" might be the best analogy. My first RM was flawed to have used the "firearm" language, but the second one, which should have been what we used in the first place, was cut short mainly because of the perception that WP:GAMENAME was occurring simply because of bad optics (starting it right after the first). I would have changed to "Private gun sales (United States)" midway through on the first go around, but I figured that would not have been best practice and that it would be best to let the original arguments stand and then to build on those substantially in the second RM, which other than a few of the same objections, was seeming to grow in support by the day before it was closed early. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would ask kindly for you to re-open the discussion for the full 7 days. If at the end of that time the final consensus stands as OPPOSE to the "Private gun sales (United States)" change, then I will happily support whatever consensus amounts to in the end and we can work on the article after that. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn The problem is the first move wasn't rejected because of a problem with the proposed name, but rather because the current name is the commonname and therefore against any move. That doesn't change based on a change in the proposed title. In time it could change, but it hasn't changed yet. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, I will note that as closer of the first RM, you will have likely seen that in my closure summary, I analyzed both the original proposed title of “private sale of firearms” as well as the alternative proposal that was brought up during the discussion of “private gun sales” and I analyzed the arguments of the discussion and the data presented by editors and for both titles, the data showed that they are both significantly lower than the current article title, which is why I determined that the consensus in line with policies was not to move at this point in time. I did note that as the data evolves in the future, a new move may then be warranted (given that ngram just released their 2022 dataset earlier this year though, from the prior release which was 2019, likely this won’t be for another year or two).

Your second RM is proposing a title that was taken into account in the initial closure, so @Estar8806‘s procedural closure of the second RM appears appropriate, given that it is unlikely that the data had changed in a few hours. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources most commonly use, not leads. And while it appears that the usage of gun show loophole may be declining a little bit, it still is the preeminent COMMONNAME at this point in time as opposers had proven.

Note that one datapoint that you brought in the original RM missed the casing invariance in an ngram link you provided, which was a simple mistake that may have led you to believe that private gun sales has more usage than gun show loophole, but as you can see in the linked Ngram in my closure which took all NGRAMs and scholar data presented during the course of the RM from supporters and opposers for the existing title and for both of the proposed titles and casing invariance into account, that was not the case. So at this point in time, gun show loophole is still higher in usage in RS as the opposers presented, which is why we don’t just count the votes of supports and opposes, but carefully weigh the arguments and presented evidence when making closure decisions. Raladic (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would object to only pinging certain editors, similarly to here...Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RM started. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to @Estar8806 and @Raladic for the RM closures and for again detailing your rationale. The second RM surely violates the spirit of WP:GAMENAME, if not the letter. Opposition to the first RM was based on policy-driven support for Gun show loophole. It was not based on quibbles over the synonyms gun vs. firearm nor whether to disambiguate in the United States vs. (United States). I suspect the examples given at WP:GAMENAME do not include swapping synonyms because there are many cases where a choice between synonyms is central to the analysis. That is not the case here. Additionally, immediately opening a second RM that ignores substantive support for the current, longstanding title is disruptive. @Iljhgtn may have misunderstood the NGram data, the assessment of consensus in the first RM closure, and the spirit of WP:GAMENAME. Hopefully this is cleared up now. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Friendly note - your talk page TOC navigation is broken on mobile due to length

Hey, Just a friendly note that I noticed that your talk page sidebar TOC navigation is broken as there's too many topics on your page, so scrolling can't get to the further down threads from the navigation, so you may want to set up auto-archiving of your user talk page to make navigation more mobile friendly. Raladic (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic Thanks for letting me know! I'll have to set that up now. :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. By the way as I noticed you just tried to set up ClueBot - unless you feel a particular need for the extra indexing, instead I recommend to setup lowercase sigmabot instead (see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Choosing_a_bot for comparison) as it runs faster (and the config is also a bit easier to read). Feel free to copy it from my User talk:Raladic talk page. Raladic (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I quite frankly had no idea what I was setting up the bot. Didn't know it was so complicated or that there were so many options. I've just copied the script from your talk like you suggested. Thanks again! estar8806 (talk) ★ 05:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. I made one small correction for you, hope that was ok :) Raladic (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course that was okay. Thanks for your help! estar8806 (talk) ★ 05:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop

My script is broken; please stop BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I did a small fix the other day to try to fix a related issue, and it seems to have broken something with my script - Move+. I'll get it fixed ASAP, but you need to stop using it for the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Oh shoot thanks for letting me know. I'll have to go back and double check everything is okay. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! Probably best to just revert, and I'll let you know when you can start up again. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, yeah I’m working on going down the line with rollback. Luckily the script only managed to do about 90 before I had to stop it anyway, then saw your message. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far in! estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry again for that! BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! 😊 estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Queen regnant versus Queen

Hello! Your change here ended up incorrect since she was queen till her death in 1741, queen regnant till 1721. Wanna fix that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing that anyway, but didn't think there'd be support for it, so I guess I will now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please add this content to the literature section of the Iran article:⬇️ Thanks.

Deconstruction in Persian Language and Literature

The book Kalagh az khoshhali dar post-e-khod nemi gonjeshk.

The book Kalagh az khoshhali dar post-e-khod nemi gonjeshk written by Reza Ghani Rayeni is an example of Derrida's approach to the problem of language as a phenomenon in which meaning and concept are always postponed, as the writing becomes full of confusion and contradictions in proportion as the expression of truth is postponed. Contrary to being placed in the genre of poetry, this book can be considered a linguistic study that attempts to open a way to enter into topics such as deconstruction in Persian language and literature.

Kamanipour (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kamanipour: if this is an edit request please make a request Talk:Iran, not my personal talk page. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No one has answered me there yet! Please help me yourself. thanks Kamanipour (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAMENAME

I would like to request that you strike the following language from your comment of the RM that you closed, "Clearly a WP:GAMENAME effort.", there was no intention on my part to "game" the "name" and all three aspect of GAMENAME do not apply. If I am wrong about the WP:COMMONNAME aspect, so be it, but no WP:GAMENAME took place and to accuse of such a practice seems to give the appearance of bad faith. I appreciate you looking at this. Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Requested_move_2_November_2024 Iljhgtn (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if "General practice is to give about 3 months or so between RMs" is the "general practice", I felt there was clear reason for immediately submitting a new RM with an entirely new name. I do not need to belabor those points here again, but the "WP:GAMENAME" accusation still oozes of a bad faith accusation that I would like to account for. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn - I've reworded but I won't completely remove the mention as it was raised in the discussion. Accusations that aren't necessarily true aren't always bad faith. And while I understand that GAMENAME may not have been your intent, I have to agree that the second discussion looked like a clear game name effort. As we discussed previously, the new name wasn't entirely new: it was quite literally a textbook example of GAMENAME, again if even that wasn't your intent. estar8806 (talk) ★ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Big Ben

An editor has asked for a Move review of Big Ben. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(Allegations of )United States support for the Khmer Rouge

Hello,

You closed this requested-move discussion Requested move 7 August 2023.

You said "there is no apparent consensus here" and "Both sides presented strong cases" but I see a consensus here to which little but one editor disagreed.

He accuses the rest of the editors of POV pushing while saying "The article does recite allegations, that are disputed as seen in the article-content.". However multiple statements in the article are factual and undisputed and correspond to US support of the Khmer Rouge, quoted here:

1) U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam. = diplomatic US support

2) I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could. = diplomatic US support has admitted by a member of the then US government (quoted from the NYTimes source of ref 20)

I will not even go on investigate the claims of political scholars quoted in the wiki article since this much is already tantamount to US support.

Point is: his argument is by every mean a fallacy, not a strong case.

I fail to see in his "Oppose" statement anything akin to a strong case.

Since "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity" and that editors have overwhelming voiced in favor of the requested move for many years (see section Move 2015, I'd say the page move should be done. Thanks. NokGradten (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@NokGradten - I see you’ve already opened a new move request. That would be the appropriate course of action to allow it to be rediscussed. In the future, I would strongly suggest you give editors at least a few hours to respond before taking action. Cheers! estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Big Ben

I'd appreciate it if you could re-open the discusion at Talk:Big Ben, as a WP:SNOW seems premature for a discussion which has only been open for twelve hours. It is possible that other editors may support the move – there hasn't been a recent move request from which to judge general the baseline support or opposition. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope - There was unanimous opposition to your proposal, arguing that WP:COMMONNAME favored the current title, as do 4/5 of the WP:CRITERIA. There was also already a significant presence in the discussion, even if it was only open for 12 hours, all of whom opposed your proposal on the grounds I've already mentioned. Even if a handful of editors came in later on, a closer would have to judge the policies behind the !support side and the !oppose side, and there's simply not a snowball's chance in hell that a consensus could or would form to ignore 4/5 of the criteria and the common name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the proposals explain how WP:COMMONNAME was not met by the proposed title. You have also misunderstood the proposal, as it does not call on editors to ignore four of the five WP:CRITERIA; I believe the proposed name meets all five, which is why I opened the move request.

Again, I think your closure is premature and ask that you re-open the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope The very first sentence of your nomination statement was The current title is recognisable, natural, concise, and arguably consistent, but not precise- you openly acknowledged that the current title satisfies 4/5 of the criteria, and then made no further reference to anything other than precision in your nomination. As for those who opposed on the grounds of commonname, it's incredibly obvious that they grounds to stand on. [5] estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, because I think that the lack of precision in the current title causes considerable problems in the article and that the move would solve this. My argument is based on the precision of the title.

COMMONNAME does not state that the most popular name must be used in all cases. It states that 'ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.' I believe that the current name of the article is ambiguous. None of the opposing arguments based on COMMONNAME addressed this point. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope You are free to believe that the current name is ambiguous, but there was clear consensus in disagreement with that.

I think you may also be misunderstanding what "ambiguous" means for this purpose: the note attached to that word reads as follows: Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction. In a nutshell Big Ben, would have to be ambiguous with something listed at Big Ben (disambiguation), not something within the article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding what 'ambiguous' means in this context. It isn't related to disambiguation, but to whether the term is ambiguous at all. In this case, 'Big Ben' is ambiguous because it is the nickname of the Elizabeth Tower, the Great Clock within it, and the Great Bell which is part of the striking mechanism of the Great Clock, all of which are covered by the article in question.

I also think you're treating the discussion as a vote. While there were seven 'oppose' votes, six gave 'COMMONNAME' as a reason with no further explanation. That is a weak argument. The seventh vote seems to have misunderstood the point I was making. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope - I'm quite frankly treating this as the farthest thing from a vote. COMMONNAME is a fundamental part of our article titling policy and quite the opposite of a "weak argument". COMMONNAME is also quite simple to understand as an argument (something either is or isn't the commonname), and therefore requires little to no further explanation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that COMMONNAME 'requires little to no further explanation'. When making a policy-based argument for or against a move editors should explain how a policy relates specifically to the move, unless they agree with another editor and are happy to endorse their position.

In this case, you've closed the move because six editors cited 'COMMONNAME' without explaining why the policy supported retaining the current title of the article. I don't think that's a good enough reason, and I'm minded to request a move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope All participants contributed policy-based comments in opposition to your proposal. I closed this discussion because there was a clear consensus that your proposed name would be less common, concise, recognizable, and natural than the current title. With that in mind, there was no chance that an argument solely based on precision could overcome that, and so there was no need to run it through the entire process. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. I'm going to request a move review. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's important to say that, although we disagree about how this move was closed, I do not see this as personal. I know Wikipedia stuff can feel personal, which is why I'm saying this, but it's just a policy disagreement. I think we've worked together in the past, in fact? Anyway, it seemed worth mentioning. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @A.D.Hope Of course it’s not personal! Like you said just a policy disagreement. Absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever!! estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I'm glad about that. Maybe it's over the top, but as it can be difficult to gauge someone's tone through text I think it's worth saying! A.D.Hope (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)