User talk:Siroxo
|
Talk! |
|
 For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
|
|
New page reviewer granted
Hi Siroxo. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. DanCherek (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for the "Keep" comment on Ramkishan Suthar. Even though we have enough coverage, that guy nominated my article for deletion. Article Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please help Atulkulhari007 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Moderator Mayhem
On 22 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moderator Mayhem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the web-based video game Moderator Mayhem was based on a card game meant to demonstrate the difficulties of content moderation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moderator Mayhem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moderator Mayhem), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Nomination of Moderator Mayhem for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderator Mayhem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks
Hi, thanks for your contributions Jack4576 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing :) Appreciate the note. —siroχo 22:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Precious
references for accessibility
Thank you for quality articles such as Moderator Mayhem and Devon Price, for beginning articles such as Maynard James Keenan, for supplying references for Jim Hall (musician) compositions, for dealing with deletion discussions, for clarifying accessibility, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2864 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Gerda Arendt, this is very kind! I appreciate it. —siroχo 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-standard poker hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Laura Roslin
On 12 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laura Roslin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battlestar Galactica character Laura Roslin has been compared to Machiavelli's Lucretia and Virgil's Dido? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Roslin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Laura Roslin), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Page mover granted
Hello, Siroxo. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
AfD Barnstar!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For consistently showing thorough and considerate analysis in your comments at AfD. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
We've crossed paths a couple of times at AfD (most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion) and every time I can remember I've been deeply impressed by your comments, which show both your talent for finding and evaluating sources and your ability to engage in thorough and well-reasoned consideration of the merits for including an article. Honestly it's inspiring and a real nice breath of fresh air from some of the "deletionist/inclusionist" false dichotomy. You've helped change the way I personally look at AfDs. Thank you! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad you find some of my comments valuable. Yeah, I have made a conscious effort to move away from that dichotomy. I had taken some long breaks from Wikipedia, and after getting really back into editing this year, I found once again that the 5 pillars are really well constructed. Even when I don't mention it in my comments, I often go back to those to determine whether an article should be included, and honestly, all 5 can influence my decision. —siroχo 22:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 100% agree on the 5 pillars! I've fallen deep into the depth of various SNGs and the debates around terms like "multiple" and "significant coverage" from time to time, and it's been a revelation for me to simply ask myself the question "are the sources we have sufficient for writing a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article". It's easier and feels like it gets at the core of what GNG is describing. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Serrano Legacy, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know you know DYKs, but check the script if you haven't. It's very useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, seems useful! I will take a day and consider nominating it. —siroχo 18:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Madhukar (author)
Hello Siroxo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Madhukar (author), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhukar (author) was back in 2008. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
About Madhukar (author) and that article's two AFD discussions
@Ism schism, Bearian, Siroxo, Hob Gadling, Warrenmck, Xeno, Politrukki, Rathfelder, Onel5969, FMSky, and Sethie: I have exercised a community granted privilege to see deleted pages in this matter. I wrote under the bare rationale "it was back in 2008". In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhukar (author) (2nd nomination) it would appear to me best if I recuse from commenting there . Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea for what purpose I am being summoned toward this exceedingly boring statement. Why call eleven people and then tell them that you will not say anything about something?
- Please do not ping me in your response. It will probably be boring too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Shirt58 There was a recent ANI about @Hob Gadling's civility for comments like this which got archived without comment. I'm going to reiterate my request for an administrator to look at how they're engaging with people on this site, considering their response to you here, though I don't want to open another ANI. This is the last comment I'll make to draw attention to their behaviour, I want to leave them alone and not come across as harassing them (or bludgeoning the process, which admittedly this undeniably slightly is since the ANI was auto-archived), but I'm deeply bothered that they repeatedly engage with Wikipedians attempting good faith in this way. Consistently.
- Slight edit, missed you were a former administrator, but I'll leave this statement as the extent of what I'll say to avoid trying to force any drama. Warrenmck (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I want to leave them alone and not come across as harassing them
You failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
About VeVe and promotional tone
Hi there, you flagged one of my articles as being "promotional in tone", could you clarify what exactly is your issue with the article? The article is barebones with a few a facts and also goes into controversy surrounding NFTs.Salsakesh (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Replied on User talk:Salsakesh —siroχo 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Thank you for your consistent and high-quality participation in the frequently contentious area of AfDs. I don't participate there often as I did in the past and when we have encountered I often disagree with you. But you are both prolific and also clearly takes time to find and examine sources; keep it up. VickKiang (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Always good to come to a respectful disagreement! I recall seeing thoughtful comments from you as well, glad you still participate. —siroχo 03:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| 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) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol newsletter
Hello Siroxo,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
La Patilla RfC
Hi! I wanted to start by thanking you by closing such an extensive and contentious discussion. I wanted to ask if you would agree with writing La Patilla's description at WP:RS/P. I would do it myself, but I think it would be appropriate being one of the main participants in the discussion. Thank you very much once again! NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NoonIcarus: I've tried to add a summary description based on the close. —siroχo 16:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That looks quite good, thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I also have to thank you for facing the challenge of closing this discussion, though some things remain unclear. You say to "be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics", to "Avoid use in contentious topics" and to "Avoid for contentious BLP claims". Would it be more accurate to close the listing in a more similar way to WP:FOXNEWS? For example, La Patilla would be deemed unreliable for politics and contentious topics though marginally reliable for Venezuelan news excluding politics and contentious topics?--WMrapids (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WMrapids, I didn't see a consensus with that level of clarity regarding politics arise from this RfC. Fox News has had several discussions over the years, one specifically targeted at the question of reliability for politics, so it's not surprising we have a very clear distinction there. —siroχo 00:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again, this is not clear. On the other hand, Venezuelan politics are clearly contentious, so this clarification is required to prevent future disputes. I attempted to open an RfC, though it appears that this was too close to your closing. WMrapids (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a general sanction for Venezuelan politics or any related topics that might fit that topic under a "broadly construed" sense.
- What is currently not clear? —siroχo 19:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, unofficially Venezuelan topics can be described as "contentious" (not sure why this hasn't happened). Wikipedia was singled out by Nicolás Maduro himself, just showing how controversial Venezuelan topics are. So when you encourage users to be "extremely cautious" and to "avoid use" with sensitive topics, Venezuelan topics are sensitive themselves. WMrapids (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a minor change to the WP:RSP summary to make it a bit more clear what "contentious" refers to in this context. Does this help with clarity? —siroχo 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Biographies are already included in the WP:GS list, so it would be easier to plainly say "avoid use for WP:BLP claims". WMrapids (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a minor change to the WP:RSP summary to make it a bit more clear what "contentious" refers to in this context. Does this help with clarity? —siroχo 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, unofficially Venezuelan topics can be described as "contentious" (not sure why this hasn't happened). Wikipedia was singled out by Nicolás Maduro himself, just showing how controversial Venezuelan topics are. So when you encourage users to be "extremely cautious" and to "avoid use" with sensitive topics, Venezuelan topics are sensitive themselves. WMrapids (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again, this is not clear. On the other hand, Venezuelan politics are clearly contentious, so this clarification is required to prevent future disputes. I attempted to open an RfC, though it appears that this was too close to your closing. WMrapids (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
List of leaders of Georgia close
In your close you say, “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1”.
Please explain how showing every other “List of leaders of X” potential title or redirect for every U.S. state X is an unused red link is not sufficient evidence that “List of leaders of Georgia” cannot be commonly used to refer to the governors, or any leaders, of the U.S. state. Especially given that ”List of leaders of X” IS used to title articles for a significant number of countries, especially for countries on the part of the globe with Georgia.
Perhaps you missed the significance. If there was no U.S. state named Georgia, this article would exist at this title, undisambiguated. If the country did not exist, there would be nothing at this title. If that’s not sufficient evidence of PT1 for you, what would be? В²C ☎ 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand what you're saying here and there is strong logical consistency, and a solid analysis of counterfactuals. However, after analyzing the discussion in depth and including the opinions of all editors who supplied one, I did not have confidence that readers expectations would reflect that same logic.
- For example, there were other logical arguments around consistency having to do with the consistent disambiguation of "Georgia"-related topics. As such, primarily relying on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions to determine primary topic didn't develop into consensus for a primary topic.
- Beyond evidence based on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions, for example, one editor linked to Google News as evidence of a primary topic, my own enumeration of results from their external link included many from both country and state, and the discussion didn't develop consensus around such evidence either.
- I hope this helps clarify my thoughts. —siroχo 23:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, like many of the opposers, you seem to be conflating the question of ambiguity and particularly PT of “Georgia” with the ambiguity and PT of “List of leaders of Georgia”. Evidence of the former, though undisputed, is irrelevant to this title decision, yet you seemed to take it in account. Is that the case? В²C ☎ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I took all editors opinions in the discussion into account. —siroχo 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that, but your finding of not "sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1", and particularly of weighing the kind of evidence of ambiguity that is present for any PT, as evidence weighed against the evidence for PT1, is puzzling. For example, I can find plenty of examples of reliable sources using "Paris" to refer to the town in Texas, the film, or the god... does that mean the city in France is not the PT for Paris? Of course not, and we can do that with every single title that has a PT on WP. Yet you apparently accepted such evidence -- citations referring to the governor of Georgia as a leader -- as evidence against this title having a PT. I don't understand that. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I believe we're speaking cross purposes. I am not arguing with your logic, I'm saying that in the discussion consensus didn't develop around your argument or any concurring arguments. —siroχo 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- But saying consensus didn't develop in a discussion depends on how consensus is determined, and specifically to what degree the arguments are weighed with respect to their basis in policy. It's not clear to me you did that at all, much less how you did it. --В²C ☎ 04:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Many editors don't generally like extremely long closing summaries, and mine was already getting a bit wordy. I appreciate that you have a different preference. I'll try to help here.
- Several policies were mentioned in the discussion. I'll try to list most of them.
- WP:MISPLACED and WP:NATURAL only matter if there is a consensus primary topic.
- WP:CONCISE won't really affect the outcome if there isn't a consensus primary topic.
- WP:PRECISE relies on "unambiguously defining" topical scope.
- It's is part of the section of policy is titled "Precision and disambiguation", and the disambiguation section aka WP:QUALIFIER specifically requires a primary topic to avoid a qualifier.
- WP:CRITERIA refers to much of the above.
- WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT again only applies when there is a primary topic.
- WP:RECOGNIZABLE references WP:CRITERIA and also notes that ambiguous titles often aren't used.
- Ultimately, editors in support and editors opposed were largely referencing the same UPPERCASE and making their claims based on their own determination of whether there was a primary topic.
- Thus, the entirety of the discussion really did hinge entirely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
- WP:DPT suggests that determining whether there is a primary topic is up to a discussion by editors, that may be informed by evidence from a list of tools (I would of course also have considered any similar unlisted tool). It also provides some general principles. The only general principle that could have quickly led to a consensus result relies on Wikinav data which doesn't exist due to the pre-existing redirect.
- The discussion alone didn't result in a rough consensus itself, so I had to more closely examine the evidence presented. I would have examined the evidence either way, in case it contradicted a hypothetical consensus, but in this case it was indeed the only possible remaining path towards determining a consensus. WP:PT2 is not helpful here. WP:PT1 is the remaining well-accepted path toward determining a primary topic, and given the lack of agreement, there was not sufficient evidence for PT1 to push consensus in one direction or the other, thus there was no consensus.
- In the absence of a compelling reason to ignore all rules, I closed the discussion as such. —siroχo 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I think you missed the significance of the red links for every "List of leaders of X" for every single U.S. state X. The second tool listed at WP:DPT is:
- Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for the exact title of a page or a redirect) and redirect traffic statistics (for the total views of a page including traffic coming from its redirects).
- The relevant article and redirect traffic statistics are 100% in favor of List of leaders of Georgia having the primary topic of the list of leaders of the country because there are no/zero/nada articles or redirects for "List of leaders of X" where X is a U.S. state. To say “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1” when ALL of the evidence supports one meaning in question and NONE of it supports the other (evidence of mere/expected ambiguity does not support the other) still makes no sense. I urge you to reverse your close accordingly. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion and argument. I believe this is something that is very clear to you. I also see is that it's not clear in the same or a similar way to enough editors. I consider that different people's minds work differently, and the way they think will often be different from me and from one another.
- I don't believe a consensus developed in the discussion, and given the comprehensiveness and duration of the discussion, I don't see a path for me to undo my close based on your request. My apologies. —siroχo 05:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I think you missed the significance of the red links for every "List of leaders of X" for every single U.S. state X. The second tool listed at WP:DPT is:
- But saying consensus didn't develop in a discussion depends on how consensus is determined, and specifically to what degree the arguments are weighed with respect to their basis in policy. It's not clear to me you did that at all, much less how you did it. --В²C ☎ 04:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I believe we're speaking cross purposes. I am not arguing with your logic, I'm saying that in the discussion consensus didn't develop around your argument or any concurring arguments. —siroχo 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that, but your finding of not "sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1", and particularly of weighing the kind of evidence of ambiguity that is present for any PT, as evidence weighed against the evidence for PT1, is puzzling. For example, I can find plenty of examples of reliable sources using "Paris" to refer to the town in Texas, the film, or the god... does that mean the city in France is not the PT for Paris? Of course not, and we can do that with every single title that has a PT on WP. Yet you apparently accepted such evidence -- citations referring to the governor of Georgia as a leader -- as evidence against this title having a PT. I don't understand that. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I took all editors opinions in the discussion into account. —siroχo 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, those links to a few news articles that refer to Georgia governors as leaders are just evidence of ambiguity, which is undisputed (that’s a given for any PT by definition), not evidence of one or the other being, are not being, PT. В²C ☎ 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, like many of the opposers, you seem to be conflating the question of ambiguity and particularly PT of “Georgia” with the ambiguity and PT of “List of leaders of Georgia”. Evidence of the former, though undisputed, is irrelevant to this title decision, yet you seemed to take it in account. Is that the case? В²C ☎ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Ido Kedar has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Vaticidalprophet 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)