User talk:Stemonitis/Archive20

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 24 2007 and August 31 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

More on damage done

I see I am not the first one to come here re the issue of your highly damaging block of Deacon. You speedily archived the feedback from other editors at your talk. The damage to the Wikipedia from the departure of the superb FA-writer caused by your hasty action is impossible to undo. The unapologetic stance you took afterwards only added the insult to an injury and aggravated the consequences. I came here though not just to tell you that and not even to ask you to apologize to Deacon in some non-self-righteous way at last, since demanding an apology that does not seem like coming is rather silly.

But specifically because of the need to learn lessons from mistakes, I must tell you that your final conclusion expressed here is misguided. That you will "Naturally, be much more careful in future" is a good thing to hear. But your newest excuses that "there wasn't much time available for fine analysis of the situation" and that what followed was a "witch-hunt" do not hold water similar to the earlier excuse when you tried to re-frame your falsely applied 3RR block into the general block for "revert warring" when the editor was removing the lunacy from the article and very much within the 3RR (still not an entitlement true enough). The "too little time to analyze" can never be an excuse to block anyone. Locking the article is always an option in case of a severe emergency (there was none here, actually.) Blocking in haste is an absolute no-no!

I would just ask you that if you can think of the way to retain the superb editors, or at least to prevent such future accidents, please act accordingly.

You don't need to respond if you don't feel like and you may archive this post as you wish. --Irpen 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I archived the comments exactly as I archive all other comments, once the page gets to over 32 kB, and my replies have been read by those to whom I am replying. Secondly, your comments are based on the premise that another person's edits were "lunacy". This is certainly wrong. His method of editing was obviously poor, but it is a reasonable argument to assert that God Save the Queen is the national anthem of Scotland. I don't say that it is true, merely that it is reasonable, and therefore clearly not lunacy. Writing FAs does not grant immunity from blocking, and I don't think either editor's activities on other articles are relevant here. I am glad that there is wider acceptance that there is nothing qualitatively different about the fourth revert. Finally, I think that to assert that my actions were the sole cause of Deacon's unfortunate departure are exaggerated. It may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but surely not the only cause. His comments suggest a series of earlier events of which I am unaware. --Stemonitis 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I did not expect that you would reverse your self-righteous denial, admit to wrongdoing (not bad intention but preventable and predictable damage of your hasty act) or come with an apology.

Oh, and I was not talking about any sort of immunity in any way. You made that one out of thin air. Besides, you are wrong about "wider acceptance that there is nothing qualitatively different about the fourth revert" as well.

Anyway, I merely pointed out to you that even your final conclusion still contained a faulty assumption ("false emergency" + "too little time to analyze" → sloppy block excusable). As for Deacon's possible return, I will try to convince him without your participation and I think it is better this way since your attitude towards this incident will only make your participation in my effort to return him less likely to succeed. --Irpen 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have admitted elsewhere that the block was based on a misreading of the situation, but that I do not believe it was wrong. I have also stated that I regret Deacon's departure, which is indeed a shame. However, both editors were guilty of edit warring; there should have been recourse to dialogue long before the point when I noticed the situation. There has been repeated edit warring over the article Scotland, and it has always been acrimonious. To deny it as a "false emergency" is misleading at best. You have also taken my comments slightly out of context. The full quote is "wasn't much time available for fine analysis", not "too little time to analyse", which says something quite different. I wish you the best of luck trying to bring Deacon back to Wikipedia, but I suspect that you are right that my assistance will probably not be helpful in that endeavour. I have never doubted that he has much to offer, and, apart from this one incident, I have been consistently impressed by his work when I have seen it. --Stemonitis 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "time to analyze", I meant to say exactly what you've said. Sorry, that's my non-native English to blame, not a deliberate attempt to add a spin. The dialog at talk took place already long before this situation recurred and the issue was long since decided by many involved parties. A mere fact that the user reverted three times may or may not be "revert warring", this is a poor excuse and your continuous invoking this straw man is lame.

That you knew the editor to a degree of being "consistently impressed by his work" and still blocked him in haste and without the proper analysis even if you thought there "wasn't much time available for fine analysis" makes my jaw drop even further down, especially noticing this being your first ever non-vandalism block of established (non-redlinked) user. Indeed a very poor way to start a blocking career. I am even more surprised to see that this was done by an admin with a record of content writing, hence the one with a better ability to judge the situation like this and to appreciate the superb editors (and again, no one is talking immunity.) Most of such blocks come from a non-writing admin-league.

Anyway, in what we seem to agree, there is nothing you can do now as the sincere apology from you does not seem to be coming anytime. So, unless Deacon returns (not sure what are the chances of that) and wishes to pursue the issue with you any further (like admin-conduct RfC that I would not recommend him as pure waste of time), we can conclude the issue at this point. --Irpen 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you consider the matter concluded, then I am happy to do likewise. --Stemonitis 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: merger

I can copy and paste it this afternoon and that's fine(I won't touch the other article because I don't want to go against any wiki policies- isn't the preservation of the history important?), but it won't let me merge the two together and that I must be an administrator to do this. Can we do a redirect instead and have 'fingerstyle guitar' directed onto 'fingerpicking'? i'm not entirely sure about how i'm to do this, the instructions weren't that clear--Mikeoman 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the preservation of history is usually very important, but it's impossible when merging articles. This is quite different from merging the history of articles, which is probably what's confusing you. When an article has been copied and pasted to a new location (usually in an attempt to move a page), we can merge the histories into a single linear history; when two articles have evolved separately over the same time, there's no way of merging the histories. The only solution is to edit one page and put a merged version there, noting in the edit summary that you're merging another article in, and stating which one, and then redirecting the other article to the first one, preferably marking it with {{R from merge}}, so it looks like this:

#REDIRECT [[Fingerpicking]] {{R from merge}}

Provided there is consensus to merge the articles (I'm pretty sure there is in this case), this does not go against policy in any way. Indeed, it's the only way to merge articles. So, be bold and merge the articles. If you have any difficulties, let me know, and I'll do my best to help. --Stemonitis 15:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried doing that but I haven't had much luck this is what I typed in #REDIRECT fingerpicking {{fingerstyle guitar|title=fingerpicking}} and #REDIRECT fingerpicking {{fingerstyle guitar}} but it says it breaks naming conventions could you tell me how to write it without breaking them?--Mikeoman 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

with that last edit you might want to look at the edit screen.--Mikeoman 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the content of fingerstyle guitar has been merged into fingerpicking, then you should replace fingerstyle guitar with the following line (as it appears on screen, not in the edit box):

#REDIRECT [[Fingerpicking]] {{R from merge}}

That should solve the problems. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "it breaks naming conventions", but that ought to work. --Stemonitis 20:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what you said and this turned up:- The requested page title was invalid, empty, an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title, or contained unsupported characters. I don't really understand it can you help?--Mikeoman 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, but the redirect is now in place, so everything is now as it should be, I believe. --Stemonitis 06:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move templates

Thank you for this information. For esoteric subjects such as Asian cuisine articles, I prefer to have the move request visible to editors who frequent these pages rather than the wider community, who may have no knowledge of this subject. Thus, placing the move request on the discussion page of the article itself will make the move request visible to such specialist editors, who may then evaluate the request and comment about it. Badagnani 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but the template also puts pages into Category:Requested moves, which is a maintenance category associated with WP:RM, and it's best to keep that clear of pages where no actual move request (in the WP:RM sense) is going on. It would be possible to {{subst:}} the template, and then remove the reference to WP:RM and the category, which would probably achieve something we can both live with. --Stemonitis 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Carers

I also think Stemonitis could be a lot more supportive, especially to people who know their subject but are maybe not so experienced in the technical rules of Wikipedia. The ridiculous editing war over carers is a case in point. I know the subject very well as an expert, I created most of the article, I have put my case repeatedly, and yet I now have zero motivation to develop this page any further because it has an unacceptable - indeed nonsensical - title of voluntary caregiver which is rejected and despised by all those people to whom it is applied. Who is the winner here? Stemonitis is a very poor editor in my opinion and should take a few weeks out to reflect on his actions and approach.Excalibur 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear how the situation at voluntary caregiver is my fault. All I have done there is to oversee a move request or two. I am not responsible for the points raised in the debate, and I can only act on the consensus or lack of it expressed there. If you don't like the outcome, then that's unfortunate, but the closing admin. is unlikely to be to blame. If it were up to me, then the article would be at carer, but Wikipedia functions on consensus, which means accepting that one will sometimes be outvoted, even when one is right. --Stemonitis 20:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles Chilton (zoologist)

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Chilton (zoologist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Ashley Michelle Tisdale

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ashley Michelle Tisdale, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ashley Michelle Tisdale is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ashley Michelle Tisdale, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

British Raj move request decision

I'm curious as to your rationale for a no consensus decision at Talk:British_Raj since you stated none. Seven users polled were in favor of the move and three were opposed (plus two who expressed reservations at WP:RM but did not participate in the discussion — I copied their comments to Talk:British Raj). I have already done the work necessary to address User:Bastin8's concerns that an article covering solely the 1858-1947 period be maintained. —— AjaxSmack 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As well as the support your proposal received, there were also several valid points raised against it. In particular, your intention of expanding the article to cover a wider time period was not supported (most of those agreeing were favouring your reasons 2–5, not reason 1); this doesn't prevent you from taking some of the material in that article and using it to make an over-arching article of wider scope. When splitting articles, the history can only remain in one place, as you clearly realise, but there was no consensus for having it moved to the article of wider scope, since it does not correspond with the current scope of the article. Provided any new article cropped from the current British Raj is created at the same time that the less relevant material is cut out, it should be possible to reassign the earlier part of the history from one article to the other afterwards. For now, I think concentrating on writing the article(s) is more important than wrangling over where the history should end up. --Stemonitis 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion, 1/3 to 1/2 of the article already covers a wider period and has since the earliest edits, none of which was my doing.

As far as splitting the article per User:Bastin8's suggestion, it has already been done. I created British Indian Empire covering 1858-1947 and hosting the infobox. The text is mostly culled from the British India article with additions in the Subdivisions section. The intro of British India has been modified to reflect the content of the article already present before these edits and to clarify the historical periods (→ "British India refers to the colonial rule of the British Empire on the Indian subcontinent including early British settlements beginning in the early 17th century, company rule by the London-based Honourable East India Company (or British East India Company) from 1757 to 1858, and the British Indian Empire or British Raj from 1858 to 1947 (the contemporaneous meaning of "British India")"). In addition, I opened a discussion at Talk:British Indian Empire to determine if there is a better title for that article.

I would think it obvious that the edit history should remain with the wider scope article since it reflects that article's de facto content for its entire existence but I wouldn't be bent out of shape if others disagree.

The important thing to me is that there was consensus to change the title of the article in question at Talk:British_Raj#Requested_move even if there was not agreement with one of seven reasons I gave for the move and it should be moved regardless of my opinions on issues of content and splits. — AjaxSmack 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have further comment on this subject but, if so, there is also discusssion continuing at Talk:British_Raj. Nonetheless, I ask you to reconsider your decision not to move the page despite consensus (7 unqualified supporters). The content disucssions between myself and two opponents of the move should not disqualify the request. I will also ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. — AjaxSmack 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion request

The third opinion request for this page has been removed from WP:3o. Third opinion isn't really appropriate in this case since it seems you're basically trying to dispute the outcome of an admin's decision in closing an WP:RM discussion. Also, the discussion is still continuing with other editors on the article's talk page, which violates the 3o guideline of "two editors only." I'd suggest if you still want to bring other editor(s) into the discussion that you consider using WP:RFC/HIST or something like that. Otherwise, see if you reach another consensus with the continuing discussion at Talk:British Raj. --Darkwind (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... shame. I'm prepared to be overruled on this one, so if another WP:RM admin were to look it over and come to a different conclusion, I'd bow to their opinion. Perhaps you (AjaxSmack) should ask User:Dekimasu or User:Anthony Appleyard (the other two currently active WP:RM admins) to have a look at it. I didn't see a consensus, but they might see it differently. I don't think I'm likely to change my mind, but it's a close enough call that if one of the others comes to a different conclusion, then I'll accept their interpretation. --Stemonitis 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your idea sounds like a more civilised (or civil) approach — I have never appealed a RM before and didn't really know how best ot do it. I will try User:Dekimasu since User:Anthony Appleyard previously commented on the proposal. — AjaxSmack 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Obama (disambiguation)

Hi Stemonitis,

What's your rationale behind this conclusion for Talk:Obama (disambiguation)?

I count 14 to 6, in favor of (or leaning towards) disambiguating "Obama".

• Those who prefer Obama to be a Disambiguation page or leaning towards it: 14

  (Neier, DAJF, Endroit, John Smith's, LordAmeth, Nihonjoe, Kyaa the Catlord, AjaxSmack, Rtrev, Vegaswikian, Anthony Appleyard, Ganryuu, Nil Einne, PalestineRemembered)

• Those who prefer to redirect Obama to Barack Obama: 6
  

  (Lowellian, Turtlescrubber, Tvoz, HailFire, Italiavivi, R. Baley)

Most of this result is in the Straw poll section. Can you please check again? Thank you.--Endroit 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When closing a move request, the admin. does not count votes, but considers the arguments presented by each side. Vote counting can enter into it, but unless there's a very clear majority (probably >90% or so, at a guess), it's unlikely to carry much weight. The question here was what topic most readers would expect when they type in "Obama" — will it be Barack Obama in an overwhelming majority of cases, or will other topics appear significantly often (among them, Obama, Fukui). There was little consensus of any kind evident in the discussion which took place, and certainly none that "Obama" wasn't going to be used as a search term for "Barack Obama" in the majority of instances. --Stemonitis 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So does it become a DAB page because there's no consensus? Or go back to "status quo" whatever that was? If so, what was the "status quo"?--Endroit 10:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The move request was to move Obama (disambiguation) over the redirect at Obama. There was no consensus for that move, so the redirect stays, and the disambiguation page stays at Obama (disambiguation), as I see it. At least, no consensus has been demonstrated for any other situation. As long as there's a hatlink at Barack Obama, then the situation is at least reasonable. It would get very subjective and opaque if I were to start looking back into articles' histories to try and find a previous status quo; in any case, consensus can change, so the only relevant discussion is the most recent one. --Stemonitis 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The status quo you mention (redirecting to Barack Obama) was attained through revert-warring and page-protection (and it appears to be the "wrong version").--Endroit 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention one. I said that I would avoid seeking a status quo that may or may not have been. My task was to assess the specific request made, which I did. To tackle your second point, the protected version is always the wrong version, in the opinion of at least one person. --Stemonitis 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So may I assume that the RM was formally closed as "no consensus" without determining the status quo? ("Without prejudice") ...And so we can now pursue other avenues in WP:DR?--Endroit 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:RM has done as much as it can for you, as little as that may have been. It's not so much "without determining the status quo" as without getting bogged down in accusations of who did what when and why. In situations like that, all the closing admin. can do is to look at the move request on its own and the arguments presented therein. We are not here to judge any previous actions, and we wouldn't want to either. --Stemonitis 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.--Endroit 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you

Hello,

Sorry to trouble you, especially so long after the fact, but the discussion on the Kyiv naming page was ongoing.

I was just curious as to why the Request to Move was closed so early. It seems that the only argument against the move remaining is that there was a vote, and it was for keeping it at Kiev.

Again, sorry for making you go so far back into history.

Thanks, Horlo 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is difficult to go back over such old ground and try to deduce the various causes. I only have a dim recollection of the case. It looks like (and I could be wrong) the move was closed as being potentially divisive and inflammatory without any real chance of producing change. Incidentally, I notice that a prominent notice at Talk:Kiev discusses an existing consensus. The diff. it links to, however, makes it clear that the request was closed with no consensus for the move, which is rather different. Fortunately, I don't think early closing would have made much difference here; a lot of people were quite opposed to using the Ukrainian-based spelling, with only a few people supporting. I would not be opposed to seeing a new move request, but I would warn that unless there is convincing evidence that "Kyiv" is about as widely used as "Kiev" in reputable English-language sources, the new request is likely to be shot down very quickly (and quite brutally). Until Kyiv is the usual English spelling, it is unlikely that a consensus will be reached to title the article "Kyiv". --Stemonitis 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

My original intention was to have a poll and discussion, not a move request - that was a suggestion from an administrator.

The problem now is that people who oppose the move don't look at the evidence I provide, but claim that there was a poll and the discussion is over.

I do not want this to become divisive or inflammatory - do you have any other suggestions as to how to convince people?

Thanks, Horlo 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the assertion that one poll renders any further discussion void is wrong, and for many reasons. That said, I don't think that's really the problem here. The problem is that, for good or for ill, "Kiev" is much more commonly used by reputable English-language sources than "Kyiv". This is a fairly central part of the naming conventions, and plenty of people would bring it up even in the absence of a prior poll. The only thing that would convince these people would be evidence that "Kyiv" really is used almost as often as, or more often than, "Kiev". Until you've got that, any move request is likely to be just banging your head against a brick wall. --Stemonitis 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that I have the arguments, if just people would look at them. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can encourage more people to join the debate? Thanks, Horlo 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Artists' books

You changed artists' books to artist's book. The widely accepted term within the art world is artists' books. Art historians and art librarians use the term artists' books. I know that it doesn't seem gramatical, but it IS correct. Can we please change it back? You use AWD and I don't understand that method well enough to change it myself.Sue Maberry 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one will need to be opened up for discussion, because at least one other person thinks that the singular is more appropriate (since the naming conventions say "prefer singular nouns"). I'll set up the request, and you can have your say there. Incidentally, I have no idea what "AWD" is — do you mean "AWB", although I don't use that either? --Stemonitis 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the move proposer, and I used AWB to change everything to the singular. My proposal was based entirely on grammatical concerns, not on knowledge of the common use of the term. No objection to reverting if there are overwhelming reliable sources affirming the plural usage. Skomorokh ^incite 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that explains the AWB comment anyway. Let's give it five days, and if no-one has objected by then, I'll change it back. --Stemonitis 12:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Attachment therapy move. Fainites ^barley 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Squilla mantis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 05:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I make the account on the Free City 14-10. Furthermore, most of the 10 had no arguments; just "like PoeticBent said" when PoeticBent's claims consisted of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and two fraudulent appeals to policy. Are you perhaps letting your own position (for which you argue much better) interfere with your perception of the balance of arguments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis, I was about about the Free City as well. I counted at least 60% of votes for the move, which is consensus. Please also make note of the scholarly evidence supporting the move. The fact that there are a number of editors voting by bias without offering explanation should be taken into consideration. Also, could you move Großherzogtum Krakau back to Grand Duchy of Cracow? It was not discussed and the title is in German now. Charles 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do, by all means. You should also note that the minority (with three exceptions) consists of Polish editors backing up a unilateral move by a Polish admin to a Polish name without stating any reasons. I respect and disagree with Piotrus and Ulla; I have expressed my opinion of PoeticBent's arguments; but at least all three of them gave some, at least tangentially related to the facts. As you should recall, I disapprove of this sort of thing equally, no matter what national faction engages in it; but letting any of them get away with their disruptions encourages all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To start with the serious point that I might be letting my own opinions interfere here, I am confident that that's not the case, and I was consciously trying to make sure I was viewing the case objectively. In fact, I am less interested in historical aspects, so I have not got a strong opinion on cases such as this. If there were (purely for the sake of argument) a request to move Kraków to Cracow, then I would have an opinion, but not for political entities of bygone centuries.

The next point is the poll. As I'm sure we're all aware, WP:RM does not function by simple polling, and a supermajority is not (necessarily) the same as consensus. Even allowing a poll format, 60% is the cut-off most frequently applied, and 14/24 is less than 60% (just). Fortunately, it's more complex than mere voting, so we come to the arguments:

The argument hinges on subtleties such as whether the "Cracow" in "Free City of Cracow" is a separate name from "Kraków" or just a different spelling convention (a point which does not arise with regard to Stalingrad, etc.), in which case "Free City of Kraków" can be considered the same name as "Free City of Cracow", merely with more up-to-date spelling, or not. Now, I'm not sure which of these is true, and actually my opinion doesn't matter. Each position is reasonable, and there is no clear consensus among the community in either direction. Finally, Poeticbent's concerns that several of the sources claimed as evidence in favour of the move might actually say something else was enough to add further doubt. Overall, I couldn't have considered myself justified in saying there was consensus for the move, and had to close the request as "no consensus". It's a shame, and perhaps a problem, that large contentious moves like this rarely reach consensus, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it's to move pages with borderline consensus.

As an aside, I thought that erecting a questionnaire aimed at a single editor was a little unfair. It did not improve my opinion of the editors involved, but did not influence the RM decision. I notice that Piotrus has got in before me moving Großherzogtum Krakow back into place; I would of course have done so myself — either Cracow or Kraków would make sense, but Großherzogtum can't be the best name. --Stemonitis 07:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the questionnaire was wholly fair because the most prominent voice I've seen in Polish related articles was essentially silent. As for your other comments regarding PoeticBent, I think the evidence on the talk page shows that the fuel for PB's concerns is bias. Honestly, the fact that the vote was in favour of the move and that evidence supported it (and not enough to the contrary) was given, makes it disappointing that this is the result seemingly on the personal choice of the closing admin. I ask that you do reconsider again the outcome of the vote. I invite you to read over the talk page again and see the "arguments" against WP:UE and WP:NCGN #1 and to observe the issue of bias and the manipulation of the conventions. Not much of what is said regarding the previous was objective. If a reason to not move it is because of controversy, don't you think keeping it where it is is controversial? Given that, look at what the evidence says. The sources about the entity chiefly give it's name as Free City of Cracow. Obviously just Cracow is more written about, so I can't say for now what that should be, but I do know that Free City of Cracow is English and the proper name for that article. If all of the given evidence can be discounted, then so be it, but that objective fact is that it cannot. Observe the blindly followed bias in favour of Free City of Kraków, a jumbled, awkward, Anglo-Polish construction and observe the attempted suppression of the English name, in their argument and on the article page, when evidence is given. If you truly thought either/or was fine, why did you not heed to the survey by the editors? Charles 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain above that in this instance (and similar instances), I do not have a personal choice. I also did not say that contention made the status quo any more acceptable, merely that such move requests debates tend not to reach consensus, which is outside my control. It is very difficult for the debate closer to consider claims of bias; he must consider the arguments presented as they are presented, and cannot investigate their motivation. I have seen plenty of arguments where each side accused the other of bias, and, indeed, most people are biased most of the time, even if they are unaware of it. I saw reasonable arguments made both in favour of the move and against it, and a fairly even split of opinion between the two. To move a page based on that sort of "consensus" would have been unjustifiable. --Stemonitis 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, even if you thought there was an even split in opinion, there was not an even split in the survey. The current title does not follow WP:COMMON, WP:UE or WP:NCGN #1. The current name is also less supported in scholarly and published literature. If what I just said was wrong, please do inform me. If it is right, then the article must be moved. Charles 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, a number of people think that your interpretation of the guidelines is at least flawed, and they have explained that during the request. You cannot expect me to overrule them on the basis of evidence you present to me. My task was to determine whether there was consensus and, if so, what it was. I saw none, and so cannot act to move the page. You are asking me to act despite the outcome of the move request. It is not an article that I have edited, or that I am likely to edit, and I have no strong opinion on its title or contents. From what I have seen of community opinion, there is no consensus to move Free City of Kraków to "Free City of Cracow". That is all I can say on the subject. --Stemonitis 08:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the outcome? The current state of the article is despite the outcome. Of course, overzealous users, some of whom have been the subject of mediation and reports several times over, will continually fog the well-meaning views of the closing editor. And no, I am not trying to make a slight at you, I'm being honest. You were misled and their efforts at confusing the situation for anyone analyzing it worked. Charles 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that they would portray it differently, and I have to try to be fair to everyone. --Stemonitis 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that you were fair to the contributors who want to follow the naming conventions and support the English name of this historical entity, that being Free City of Cracow? Charles 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. I considered the request on its own merits, and the formation of consensus around it. I understand that you are annoyed at seeing the move founder, but there really wasn't a consensus in favour of it. Had there been an equally weak majority in favour of moving "Free City of Cracow" to "Free City of Kraków", I would not have moved it either. That seems perfectly fair to me. --Stemonitis 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please comment on the evidence? Surely that must be taken into consideration. I have seen plenty of article move without consensus on that basis. Charles 09:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood Poeticbent's evidence; it was that a small number of sources that Google reports as using Krakow in fact use Kraków. Both together are still a minority against Cracow (again, for the historical name), and the four books concerned (out of almost 100) were never part of the evidence for Cracow.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thalassina, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions. Daniel 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What is consensus to you?

I understand polling is evil and so forth but how do you determine if there is consensus? Certainly everyone agreeing would qualify but that is unlikely in highly contested moves. In the case of Free City of Kraków there was a 12-8 non-consensus in favor of a move. At British Raj there was a 7-3 non-consensus in favor of a move. In each case, there were well-presented valid arguments on both sides. There was no forum shopping and, in the case of British Raj, I informed everyone who had participated in naming discussions over the past year. And there were no threats of disruption if the result went a particular way. In each case 60% or more of those polled favored the move and yet the move was denied. What, then, does it take for the mystical consensus to form? WP:CON is an unpithily (word?) vague tract that doesn't offer much guidance so I'm wondering what informs you? I would argue that denial of moves despite wide support gives a feeling of de facto rule by admin writ and encourages working outside the system. One might rather make a controversial move undiscussed knowing that "consensus" to move it back might never be reached. I am posting a variation of this addressed generally at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves so please reply there. — AjaxSmack 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture, regional characteristics

W.T.S do you think you are, moving a page that someone has spent many hours on, with NO discussion whatsoever, and what-is-more, you have the b. impudence to refer to your edit as minor!

Why do you think the article begins with the words "Romanesque architecture"? Because THAT is the main emphasis of the topic.

Now, can I suggest that you fix what you have done.--Amandajm 10:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

And then Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which explains how we agree to name articles on Wikipedia (including "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles").

Finally, Wikipedia:Assume good faith might be worth reading (given "who do you think you are" and "impudence").

I'm sorry if this all sounds patronising, but these are important aspects of the way Wikipedia works. I should point out that when moving a page, the edit is automatically marked as minor, which is perhaps a flaw, but is beyond my control. --Stemonitis 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandy Hill, Wales

I've just changed the grid ref and prominence of this hill quite significantly (by about 30 mi and 33 m respectively). I'm slightly concerned that we might be talking about different hills. Do you recall where you got the information when you originally wrote the article? — ras52 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. It looks to me like I just put in a placeholder grid ref. of six random digits (knowing Pembrokeshire to be in the SN grid square) so that I could get a link to Get-a-map, and then forgot to update it with the real grid reference. The fact that the grid ref. I gave was very nearly "654321" is very suggestive. For the relative height, I've got no idea where that came from, and 151 m seems much more likely. I made the article in a hurry when disambiguating it from another Brandy Hill, so it's not too surprising if some of the details are wrong (although such big errors are a bit of a worry). --Stemonitis 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)