User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Happy Adminship day KrakatoaKatie
|
Wishing KrakatoaKatie/Archive 25 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Vatsan34 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. 
Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: 
Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 
Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to 
Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, 
Casliber (submissions) and 
Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Margaret Mutu
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Margaret Mutu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
President of Egypt....
...sorry, I already had semi-protected. Feel free to revert, of course. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Michael Knighton
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Knighton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, 
Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Steven Crowder
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steven Crowder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
B_de2002
Please, don't semi-protect my father, Barun De's page. I opened it. I don't want some of the informations given here to be available, such as the birth and the death dates. Please, can you remove them? It's a sincere request to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.242.155 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Barun De Wikipedia page
Dear KrakatoaKatie, I write with a request. You have semi-protected my father, Barun De's, Wikipedia page. This is because of what is called sock puppetry. I opened that page. I don't want his birthday and death day to be displayed on this page. Please, could I request you delete at least that information from this page? There are valid reasons for that. I would be deeply grateful to you if you could kindly also remove the section mentioning his death. Bikramjit De (ID: B_de2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.249.238 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the loss of your father. It must be a hard time for you right now. However, it is normal practice to display the birthdate and date of death for biographies of notable people such as Barun De if a source is available, and one has been provided in this case.
- Since you have a conflict of interest, it is better that you not edit the article right now because it seems you cannot do so without disrupting the project. It is unlikely you will be able to continue editing here unless you understand policies and procedures such as this.
- Please accept my condolences. I urge you to step back and not worry about small details. If and when you decide you can edit within our guidelines, your contributions will be welcomed. KrakatoaKatie 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions on deletion policy
Dear Katie, I am a new Wikipedian and your help would be greatly appreciated. I have tried twice to upload an article about Christos Terzides, a well known Greek writer and music manager, on en.wikipedia. Both times my article has been deleted and I would like to know what can I do to keep my articles online... The second delete was made by user Randykitty under section G11 of the criteria on speedy deletion. I am sure that my article was informative (biography) not advertising. What can I do? Would it be a problem if i try to upload again the same article? Thanks in advance for your advice on this matter. (Vendrediv (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.
We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), 
ThaddeusB (submissions), 
Dana boomer (submissions), 
Status (submissions), 
Ed! (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), 
Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.
This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.
Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The Busy World of Richard Scarry
Can you rangeblock 2605:E000:150E:13::/64 for his disruptive edits to The Busy World of Richard Scarry? Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi - I actually thought about that when I responded to your request the other day. However, this is the first IPv6 rangeblock I'll attempt to do and I've got to read up on it. IPv6 addressing doesn't work like IPv4 addressing (as I'm sure you're aware), so I can't do a simple /64 rangeblock like we're used to doing. The rangeblock helper doesn't even work for IPv6 addresses, which is a HUGE bummer because now I've got to figure it out by hand or bother a Checkuser I know to help me (he wouldn't mind it, but just the same).
- Let me know if the three days of semi just applied to the article don't work. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can figure out how to do this, because I **don't** think three days will be enough. Worst case, we'll have to long-term or indef the article. KrakatoaKatie 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- That didn't take long - turns out WHOIS is incredibly helpful in figuring out the range for IPv6 addresses. Wish it was like that for IPv4 - if it was, we wouldn't need the rangeblock helper at all.
- The range is 2605:e000::/32, because there's another IP address on August 6 that changes the equation. That's 16,384 users, which is way too many to block for one vandal. Unless it dramatically escalates to other articles (which has happened on occasion), we'll have to make do with semi-protection. Sorry. :-( Again, let me know if we need to lock the article long-term. KrakatoaKatie 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, a
/32/64 is frequently a single user because of the way that most carriers map IPv6 onto IPv4. If you can't find any contributions in this range that appear to be someone else, it probably is all assigned to one user.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)- The page at Meta about IPv6 blocks is really confusing. First it says what Kww says, then it gives this table showing a /32 block as 16K users. I've got to learn more about this. But if I've got another admin's opinion, which it seems I do, I'm willing to do the rangeblock.
- Let's wait the three days for semi to expire, then see if he returns. If he edits other articles in the meantime or returns to this one, I'll drop the curtain for at least a month. We can make IP exemptions if we need to. I have very little patience for this kind of stuff.KrakatoaKatie 23:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the semi is 6 months now, so I guess it's kind of a moot point for now. Anyway, the way IPv6 addresses are usually assigned, the WHOIS range is the ISP's range, not the user's range, so it can't act as a replacement for the helper. The ISP has that /32 for a lot of its customers, and each customer gets a /64 (or sometimes a /48 or /56 or something, but that doesn't appear to be the case here), and Windows makes it easy to hop between IPs within it, but it's much harder to hop between IPs outside of it, so blocking the /64 probably would have been enough to stop him, at least for a while. </long-winded>. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I misspoke, Jack is correct. A /32 for single user would be rare, a /64 would be quite common.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was really proud of myself when I figured out IPv4 addressing. Now I guess I'm going to get really, _really_ proud of myself by learning IPv6. Can we please not have IPv8? KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Grey goo nanobots could eat 40% of the earth before they'd run out of IPv6 addresses. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was really proud of myself when I figured out IPv4 addressing. Now I guess I'm going to get really, _really_ proud of myself by learning IPv6. Can we please not have IPv8? KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I misspoke, Jack is correct. A /32 for single user would be rare, a /64 would be quite common.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the semi is 6 months now, so I guess it's kind of a moot point for now. Anyway, the way IPv6 addresses are usually assigned, the WHOIS range is the ISP's range, not the user's range, so it can't act as a replacement for the helper. The ISP has that /32 for a lot of its customers, and each customer gets a /64 (or sometimes a /48 or /56 or something, but that doesn't appear to be the case here), and Windows makes it easy to hop between IPs within it, but it's much harder to hop between IPs outside of it, so blocking the /64 probably would have been enough to stop him, at least for a while. </long-winded>. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, a
- The range is 2605:e000::/32, because there's another IP address on August 6 that changes the equation. That's 16,384 users, which is way too many to block for one vandal. Unless it dramatically escalates to other articles (which has happened on occasion), we'll have to make do with semi-protection. Sorry. :-( Again, let me know if we need to lock the article long-term. KrakatoaKatie 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit summary comment
I am sorry, but your comment on The Host article about me needing to be blocked is completely absurd. An IP with no previous edits was seizing on one or two sources calling a film a "flop" to insert that highly subjective description into the lede of articles on films as though it were a fact. The term is subjective and has negative connotations. Generally, it is not encyclopedic to call a film a "flop" in the editorial voice regardless of sourcing. Dealing with a tendentious IP insulting you over and over is not rewarding in the first place, having to deal with admins treating people like troublemakers when they are trying to maintain respect for policy and this site's encyclopedic purpose is exactly what's wrong with this place.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Request for protection of Comedy Nights with Kapil from IP vandal
Hi KrakatoaKatie, Thanks for semi-protecting the page Comedy Nights with Kapil a few days ago. The lock has expired now, but I request you to extend it for a few more weeks to discourage an IP vandal who keeps removing sourced information on the page giving the flimsy reason "not required" in the edit summary. You can see the edit history of the page for the pattern of removals and my reverts. The IP again removed information today seeing that there's no lock on the page.
Thank you again for your help. - Max - Talk 07:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks KrakatoaKatie! I also noticed that he was editing from many different IPs in KSA, so you're right on the money when you say that he's editing from different locations and devices. Thanks again and take care. - Max - Talk 02:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you have semi-protected the article for about 3 months. But, I didn't find any pp template on the article as well as the edit history of the page. Thanks -- L o g X 18:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- L o g X 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hanoi Vandal
Hello. Thanks for the block and the reverts of the IP of HV. I'm here because I think it's fair to inform you that some of those outstanding edits you reverted may have been actually correct and legit contributions by the vandal. Just so you know. It's part of his M.O. to through in constructive edits on occasion in an attempt to trip me up, avoid being blocked, sneak other misinformation through, etc.
However, please don't worry about it. First of all this guy has been adding crap into articles for nearly seven years. His contributions in the year 2010 alone resulted in such an enormous volume of garbage introduced into Wikipedia it's nearly unfathomable. And likely that a small percentage, yet still large a quantity, survives and remains live today. When myself and another editor first discovered the magnitude of this person's disruption, I was finding surviving vandalism from years earlier, still standing. It is quite possible based on the sheer volume and nature of the vandalism, that this individual may be responsible for more false information currently contained in Wikipedia than any other single user. Based on this alone I would say he has long ago given up any right at all to be allowed to contribute in any way to this project, constructively or otherwise.
Secondly by reverting all his edits, including those that may very well be legit, we are in hopes possibly getting him to either a) communicate in any way to anyone or b)provide a source supporting his assertions; two things this vandal as far as we know has never ever done, not once during the seven years of disruptive editing. Not once even leaving any kind of edit summary at all!
This guy knows that I am onto him. His actions indicate to me that he knows he is being watched. He intentionally edits in such a way to keep me on my toes and have to go through extra work to stay on top of his activities, and yet it appears he wants me to find his edits. He wants me to know he is still editing so I know that I can't stop him.
All I can do know is just try to make his life difficult. If on the chance that it requires some effort or time out of his day to force a new IP address, then that is why I have him blocked on occasion. In fact, that's the only reason I do it. It's actually easier for me to deal with this clown when I don't have him blocked. Honestly as you can tell, this has turned into just a big game of cat and mouse and don't really know if I can keep doing it indefinitely.
Sorry to ramble on. I started out just explaining about the outstanding edits and it turned into something else. I can handle him for now, but if there is anything you suggest that can be done that isn't being done already, my ears are open. User:MaterialScientist has already tried hitting him with a barrage of range blocks last month and even that really didn't seam to have much of an effect, fyi.
Thanks for you time. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thanks for that IP Block, this particular one was troubling me a lot across three different articles. Sohambanerjee1998 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
Names definite article
17 to 7 is indeed a consensus for removal. FTR, I am challenging your closure. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've been asked to discuss the closure with you before proceeding with a review, so here goes: Can you please explain to me why you think that there is not consensus for removal of the contradictory entry regarding the optional prescription for capping the definite article while listing band names? Sentence case and list case are not subject to different rules, so this particular statement contradicts the rest of the MoS, which is otherwise in agreement. Also, I'm not sure why you think that the Beatles mediation set a precedent, but you seem to think that all such future discussions need to occur on a band by band basis, why? This hasn't to do with any particular band, but rather a contradiction in our MoS. IMO, the arguments from those opposing removal are much weaker than those supporting removal, and the numerical majority is quite clearly 17-7. Why do you think the discussion did not yield a clear consensus? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion is/was taking place at User talk:GabeMc[1]. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello KrakatoaKatie. I understand your thinking, however, it is "your" thinking, and that is a concern. You have used a supervote by bringing your interpretation of a statement that you agreed with, but which formed no part of the closing decision, nor of guideline nor of policy. If you wish to bring in Fut.Perf.'s opinion as something that you feel others should take note of, you are entitled to do that as a participant in the discussion, but not as a closer. In the circumstances it would be appropriate for you to vacate your close, and allow someone else to close the discussion. You may, of course, still make a comment about Fut.Perf.'s opinion as a fellow participant. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with User:SilkTork; you should vacate your close and allow someone else to close the discussion. Your use of a supervote was inappropriate, IMO. FTR, Fut.Perf. was but one of dozens of participants and TMK, he played no role in Brad's closure. Also, if you re-read the archives you will see that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise made several errors regarding the confines of minimal change to spoken utterances and more than once threatened me with unjustified blocks, which would seem to make him a poor choice to quote in this situation. Further, your suggestion that nobody challenged the assertion that this should be handled on a case-by-case basis is incorrect. User:Evanh2008 was quite vocal about his opinion that the result should be treated as a Wikiwide precedent. To be honest, I would have enthusiastically agreed with him had I not been weary of the "Big T" faction's frequent use of scare tactics to gain !votes in opposition; i.e., explicitly stating that the outcome would apply to all bands would have inevitably drawn opposition from numerous uninvolved projects, so we focused on just the Beatles, but really, is an article preceding a noun to be treated differently based on how editors feel about the noun? Is Ray Davies less of a Kink than McCartney is a Beatle? Lastly, while you say that there were cogent arguments on both sides, all I see from the opposition to removal is the same old "its part of the name so it should be capped", but then what about Band of Gypsys? Why not cap "of"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- GabeMc asked me about this on my talk page, and, without having seen SilkTork's comment above, my response was essentially the same as his. I consider it a bad close. Deor (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- During the long drawn-out discussions about capitalising the/The Beatles I said several times that the result was going to give direction for every mention of every band on Wikipedia. When the ArbCom case was closed, a lot of editors took the Beatles' case as the new standard for all bands, and moved forward with relevant changes to lowercase 'the'. The "case-by-case basis" which you described surprised me greatly—it is not part of ArbCom's decision. The Beatles were a wide-reaching test case, not an isolated one specific only to John, Paul, George and Ringo. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)