Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 3 June 2013

Berhault and thanks

Thanks, Nathan. I'm learning, I love the place and all the good work I see you guys are providing. As soon as I have enough time in evenings or afternoons. I'm trying to help and participate as much as I can, Still don't know how to use most of the features, how to send a message like this very one (should I do like that, editing your page?), etc. Glad to help. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akseli9 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Akseli9, you're doing great work. You got somewhat unfortunate at Articles for creation in that a relatively inexperienced editor reviewed the article. Sending messages is just like editing an article, which it looks like you know how to do, except that it's on a talk page. To sign a talk page, just type four tildes ~~~~. That will automatically expand (for me) into → Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Template help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone familiar with templates have a look-see at User:Nathan Johnson/sandbox and fix it. Hopefully obvious what I was trying to do, but if not, I want the {{Cite book}} template to be the expanded text when the template is substituted. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please don't. Have a look at lua templating at WP:LUA which can do this far more effectively with a simple string.format Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

{{subst:User:Nathan Johnson/sandbox|7|pages=41-65}} yields:

Steven M. Cox and Kris Fulsaas, ed. (2003). Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills (7th ed.). Seattle: The Mountaineers Books. pp. 41–65. ISBN 9780898868289. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

Let me suggest that after you tweak this and get it where you want it, find a good Lua expert to help you convert it. We do seem to be heading in that direction. – PAINE ELLSWORTH  21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I don't think it'll get used more than a handful of times, only when I come across an incomplete reference to the book (usually an old edition that I don't have). That's happened a few times already, and I just ignored them, but in the future I want to update them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, cool, and You're welcome!. FYI, the details on safesubbing are here. – PAINE ELLSWORTH  08:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Any idea why this doesn't work inside <ref> tags? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidently due to the occasional need to improve the code, templates have to be transcluded between ref tags. So leave the "subst:" out at the beginning and don't substitute the template. One possible drawback with this is that other editors, if they come across a deadlink that lies within this template, will find it more involved than usual to fix it. – PAINE ELLSWORTH  20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Steven M. Cox and Kris Fulsaas, ed. (2003). Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills (7th ed.). Seattle: The Mountaineers Books. pp. 41–65. ISBN 9780898868289. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

PS. It's not explained, but it is noted at Help:Footnotes#Limitations

WP:LAME

I just wanted to say, I don't fully agree with this refactoring of your talk page comment, but I do agree that it is totally inappropriate to refer to WP:LAME in closing an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is lame. It's lamer when you consider how many bytes have been wasted arguing on the talk page. It's lamer still that some people don't actually think it's lame. I got nothing else; I don't care that my comment was refactored, though I don't think it was inappropriate to point out a lame edit war. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But the RfC had nothing to do with the edit war... StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right... absolutely nothing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Placing a "Travel guide" link to Wikivoyage next to the geographic coordinates in articles on cities and countries

Had I not been involved in this, I would have suggested this be closed as no consensus. I don't see that any developed there. I see opposes and alternate ideas and conditionals with little change in positions. Rmhermen (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note. I'll re-read the discussion. (permalink for me). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep on this. I don't think there's any hurry, so I'm not going to re-open it, but I don't think it should be implemented yet. Though I wouldn't object if you, or someone else, did so. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Rmhermen here. There was no consensus no add a top link merely for Wikivoyage as you stated in your rationale. There were many conditional supports and opposes, mainly depending on whether or not this proposal was extended to include the other sister projects. I did not tally the votes, so there may or may not be a consensus to do so under these modified conditions. This should at least have been mentioned as one of your considerations in closing this discussion. —Ruud 12:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-done. Thank you both for your comments. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think your closing rationale lacks the necessary depth to do the discussion adequate justice and had hoped you would have consulted with another uninvolved editor, but being the proponent of this proposal I should probably let the matter rest for now. —Ruud 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your summary at an RfC posting

Hi Nathan,

I just happened upon your December 3rd edit summary on the talk page here. While it is ancient news, I would appreciate if one item could be corrected? You wrote: "The result of this RfC is that two user receiving topic bans from this article." That is factually incorrect. Only one user received a topic ban in that RfC. The other user voluntarily self-banned to contribute toward resolving the issue. Big difference. And I wouldn't want anyone reading that summary to be misled by it. So if you could please fix it, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C89A:7FD2:E561:B6DC (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, I don't think I'm going to change the close at this stage. For one, it's pretty stale at this point, and, more importantly, the functional difference between self-banning in the face of a ban and a ban is nil. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anna Stöhr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Austrian, Arco and World Youth Championship

Rock Master (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Arco and Vladimir Zakharov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Copying within Misplaced Pages RfC

Hi. You closed WT:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Upgrade to Policy as no consensus two weeks ago. Would you consider amending your close to "consensus against promotion" or adding an explanatory closing statement? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay, forgot about this. Oops. :-) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I just saw it myself. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Maharis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Modified close

Hi, I took the discussion "Arbcom positions" out from the bottom of your close of User:Jmh649/Will Beback on the grounds that it is a different discussion. Cardamon (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Close of Merge proposal for Francesca Hogi

Hi. The author of the article is unhappy with the closure. I've made a note of this here. I'm not sure of the review process in these cases. The link to doesn't really make it very clear what the appeal process is. -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I thought consensus was clear, but apparently not. I have no problems with someone else taking a look at it. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think consensus was quite clear, but MouthlessBobcat (talk · contribs) has reverted all the changes after the close of the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  03:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Litecoin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Litecoin. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks...

Hi, I will try to contribute. So far I only tried to arrange Adam Ondra page, because I always found sport climbing on en.wiki in a very stub condition and I don't speak english very well. I never understood for example why american climbers like Robyn Erbesfield, Sean McColl, Daniel Woods, Sasha DiGiulian, Alex Puccio, Paul Robinson (climber), which are so famous in Europe, didn't have a page on en.wiki (or why Patrick Edlinger is called "free solo climber" :P). Probably because sport climbing and its competition are related to Europe and so there is less interest in sport climbing in USA and more interest about big walls or trad climbing. There are many things in sport climbing to correct, I will try to contribute to fix them. Cya! --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Nathan Johnson, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! INeverCry 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angela Eiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Responded

Hi I responded to you at Talk:Arlene's Grocery Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your close

Hello Nathan. I imagine you've seen this discussion, but if not I would urge you to revert your recent move close for the reasons articulated here. I must say, I'm a bit surprised that as a non-sysop you would close a move discussion such as that, before the 7 days have run. Where it is clear that -- even if you disagree with them -- 80% of the !voters read the guidelines differently than you do. My experience is non-sysops tend to not close such discussions, and certainly not close them early (usually something reserved for a SNOW), when 80% of !voters have a view that differs from the non-sysop. We can of course run this through review and whatever other noticeboards are necessary, but I wonder if instead of wasting community time you might not give consideration to the points that your early close of the 7-day process might not perhaps be better handled by you reverting, and at minimum allowing the seven-day process to proceed unless the discussion is closed via SNOW ... which would be unlikely if only 20% of !voters see matters as you do. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Admins have no special powers in closing discussions though. I was just responding to the request at WP:AN/RFC. I didn't realize that it hadn't run the allotted time. Sorry. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. As to non-admins closing -- yes, that is allowed. But, and I base this on various discussions I've seen at AN/I and AfDs, when it comes to a potentially contentious close (which, for the reasons I mention above, one could perhaps view this one as), from what I have seen in community discussion the suggestion appears to be that it is better left to an admin. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. It was about RfCs, but RMs allow non-admin closes too, even contentious ones. AfDs are different and I don't venture there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My comment was based on various discussions I've seen, but the comment here by Arb Committee member New York Brad captures the flavor of most of the discussions I've seen. No doubt, as even in that discussion, there are discussions and/or individual points of view that differ. I don't see any material difference in what the discussion is about, as long as it calls for a closure (e.g., RFC, AfD, move, RfA). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment was about a RfA closed as SNOW by an admin (non-crat) in March 2008. I don't understand how that is remotely related. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the concept, though as you point out the circumstances differ as it was admin vs. crat, rather than non-admin vs. admin. I see the issue as being the same one, as I said, whether the discussion is about a move or a deletion or any similar community discussion that a non-admin may close.

The wp guideline Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure is another example that contains language on the general issue of non-admin closures. It states:

"In general, administrators are responsible for closing deletion discussions. However, at times the many discussion venues become backlogged.... Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator."

Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a guideline. It's specifically about deletion discussions. And your "quote" isn't even on that page. It's on Misplaced Pages:Deletion process, which is, again, about deletion discussions, and not applicable here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes -- I was citing to the guideline (as indicated by my quotes), but incorrectly gave you the link to an essay (which in turn links to the guideline). So my comment and quote are as to the guideline. My link was incorrect, and for that I apologize. Again -- in my view the rationale that we find at Non-administrators closing discussions, discussing the closing by non-admins of community discussions (in that circumstance, deletion rather than move discussions), is precisely the same as the rationale at move discussions. The fact that it is a move -- rather than a deletion -- does not at all impact the fact that it is better to have non-admins not close clearly contentious decisions, especially before the 7-day deadline, and especially when 80% or so of 15 editors have !voted one way and the closer is closing the discussion the opposite way. All the good reasons for a non-admin not closing those discussions apply, in my view, whatever the nature is of the community discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I commend Nathan on his quick and friendly self-revert of the close. And I fully agree with Epeefleche that because of the very contentious nature of this particular title issue - for an extremely high-profile article, no less - it would be preferred that an admin does the close. However, I believe that many participating editors would not be opposed instead to a very good non-admin with strong closing experience. In any case, thank you to Nathan for undoing the close and, therefore, preventing a wikiriot. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI... I finally found the policy about closing requested moves that I was looking for. ;) Rule #1, which was violated by a few editors, says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which clearly explains the conflict of interest issues I alluded to previously. With regard to Nathan's involvement, the policy also talks about non-admin closures. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Columbia Boulder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Climbers and Camp 4

Daniel Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richardson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

About your removals

I am just writing to an administator. --Rotpunkt (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WTF? Go ahead. WP:ANI is where you should go. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Rotpunkt doesn't have to go to ANI, so there's no need for WTF. I assume that Rotpunkt came to me because they realized I used to hang out in Nideggen. See my comments on Talk:Daniel Woods. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The WTF was because when someone disagreed with him, instead of discussing, he immediately went to a (presumably) friendly admin. ANI would have been preferred for a response from neutral admins. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Settle down. Asking a friendly admin for advice is perfectly alright. What did you think, a block was going to be handed out immediately? Admins do a lot more than that, I hope. I don't think I've ever interacted with this person--ANI is for intervention, and I don't see the need for that yet. Having said that, though, I think you need to take it easy with the reverts. Removing those "Biography" headings strikes me as retaliatory, and removing them makes the articles worse, not better. But see that talk page: if you all cooperate you can improve the project. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the last week off from climbing articles because this user was pissing me off. I come back and within an edit he is already calling my edits vandalism and "writing to an administator". The heading removals was not retaliatory. Had I not been taking a short wikibreak this past week, I would have removed them as I saw them. It just happens I saw them all at once. And I disagree; I think removing them makes the articles better, hence why I did it. But I am open to communication, which in my experience, this user is not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:LEAD. Without "Biography" or some such section, there is no lead. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "Biography" heading between the first and second paragraph does not make a WP:LEAD. All it does is add an unnecessary heading. If he actually wants to write a lead, I'm fine with that. But that's not what he's doing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: User:Xenophrenic

On February 24 you recommended a topic ban for Xenophrenic (and four other editors) at WP:ANI. Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nathan. As the editor being "commented upon", I'd like to reiterate the above request that you participate by providing diffs to problematic behavior. You left this response in agreement with Collect's comment:

• This is basically right with respect to Xenophrenic. Although I doubt anyone has clean hand in this topic. Stones, glass houses and all.

While I see you have attempted to be even-handed by noting that none involved have clean hands, you expressed some certainty that Collect's outrageous mischaracterization of me "is basically right". After looking at the only 3 diffs provided by Collect and seeing they do not at all support his mischaracterizations, I'm left wondering what information you used to arrive at the comment you left. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at this issue when it was at ANI, I said I thought that topic bans for 5 users would be a good idea. One of them was you. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input. I'd link to the diff, but someone copy and pasted that page, so I can't unless I through the history of ANI to find it, and I'm not going to do that. If I already know the history of a particular user, then I don't need to diff dive to support sanctions or comment on an RFC/U. I had already looked through your edit history and convinced myself that you were part of the problem in this topic area. If I wish to convince others of my viewpoint, then I would need to provide diffs. But I am not doing that here, nor have I done so for you in the past. Further, I believe that in the case of long-term, low-level tendentious editing, one, two, ten, or twenty diffs will never be enough proof to satisfy anyone that sanctions are needed. One needs to basically look at all the diffs to see the cumulative effect, which can be more than the sum of all the individual diffs. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I recall the comment you made at the ANI, so no need to dig up the exact link to it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that while no subset of my edits can prove tendentious editing, the cumulative effect of the whole of my contribution history does prove it? I'm not buying it; let me explain why. I believe you (and other editors) are confusing "editing against POV pushing" with "editing to promote a POV". There is a huge difference, but it is easy to confuse the two if one doesn't look at the actual edits. When I repeatedly edit against POV-pushing editors of a particular stripe, one might mistakenly conclude that I am therefore promoting a counter-POV, when in reality I am only editing toward the neutral middle. Editing toward a POV extreme is tendentious and against Misplaced Pages policy, but editing against POV extremes is not, even though it may give the appearance of editing to the opposite POV. I contend that the reason you (and other editors holding the same misperception) find it a struggle to come up with twenty, ten, two or even one diff to support your assertion is not because my editing is too "low level" to come up with concrete examples, but because my editing is only against extreme POVs and toward the middle (encouraged by Policy), instead of toward an opposite extreme (forbidden by Policy). Please consider this, and let me know your thoughts.

Collect has asserted that I am "an inveterate POV-pusher with tenacious editing habits. He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc." I strongly refute that gross mischaracterization. You appeared to express agreement. I'd like to know in certain terms if your agreement was with that part of Collect's assertion, and more importantly if so, why. That's not something you can agree with and express about another editor based on a mere "cumulative effect" feeling, and not expect to be pressed for substantiation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

yep

Sorry about using a short name for Xenophrenic - I guess I should be glad the bureaucrat did not take umbrage <g>. I am just too used to using short versions of names I suppose. Collect (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Nathan Johnson, I would like to talk with you. I don't like the walls, I would like to have a friendly relationship with you. I want to talk about what we share. I think we share a great passion for sports: I don't know which is your main sport, you surely have one, I spent great part of my life walking and climbing on mountains (I live near many crags and many four-thousanders). And both of us are very meticulous person (probably we both have a scientific underground) and this is good. However for this reason may be sometimes we appear to stand firm on our position. I have discussed with you about the navbars and the notable lists, but as you have seen I don't start editing before finding a consensus. So... when we discuss if you don't like my ideas, let's go on anyway, talking about the problems and not about the persons (my competence, my english, and so on). You don't like my criteria, ok, we will try something different, however we both (not only me) must be ready to change idea on something, otherwise there is no collaboration. I can learn from you but also you can learn from me, perhaps you have liked my it.wiki articles a bit. I really hope we can start a friendly and constructive relationship. Have a nice time. Cya. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rotpunkt. Thank you for the kind note. I agree that I have been less than cordial, and I apologize for it. I truly believe that we both are doing what we think is best for the encyclopedia. Your behavior has been much better than mine. I think it would be best if I try another short wikibreak from climbing articles, or stick to my current project of improving the rock climbing article. You are right that I have a scientific background and tend to stand firm. That doesn't suit editing on Misplaced Pages that well which requires such a high degree of compromise. In future, I will make an extra effort in all discussions to be more cordial, but especially with you since I think we do have so much in common. (Btw, my main sports are road cycling and sport climbing, and snowboarding in the winter to keep outside. I have not been climbing nearly as long as you.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am so happy now. Misplaced Pages is great, however the user interaction (asynchronous and anonymous) is not easy. I think if we talked face to face we would have fun. If in the future I can help you for something feel free to write in my talk page. All the best. Cya. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Travis Alexander

Hi Nathan. I saw that you moved for a close on the article renaming thread, and concluded the overall preference was for Murder of Travis Alexander over Trial of Jodi Arias with a vote of 10 to 8 respectively (as of !votes cast today and yesterday, a ratio of 5:4). You did a pretty good job summing things up, but your close did not address the point that no policy based arguments were made for Murder of Travis Alexander over Trial of Jodi Arias, the latter of which WP:COMMONAME and notability were in support for. Since Misplaced Pages does not use "votes" to decide consensus, would you mind adding that to your summation and addressing that issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I will reexamine the discussion. I spent quite a bit of time reading it and did not see much evidence given to either WP:COMMONNAME or WP:N. Were those discussed in a different section on the page in more detail? I did skim the rest of the talk page, but did not read it in depth. Also, I did not count the votes, so I am surprised that the ratio was 5:4. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for re-looking it. Subsections for restating policy-based arguments were added on 12 May 2013, please see here. I think many editors have a preference for the article title being "Murder of Travis Alexander" over "Killing of Travis Alexander" (it makes total sense), but when further comparing "Murder of Travis Alexander" to "Trial of Jodi Arias", the latter is actually supported by policy (while the most important point developed in support of "Murder of..." is that some editors feel it is more inclusive of all items related to the sordid mess this murder was. Not a policy based reason, but still worth considering.) The !vote tallies at 10 to 8 as of today, with another editor voting for Murder of... yesterday and another editor voting for Trial of... today. If you'd like a by-name tally, here's a roadmap:

For "Murder of Travis Alexander": Joseph A. Spadaro, Kelly, Halo Jerk1, Bishonen, Lord Sjones23, ukexpat, Risssa, 68.231.15.56, ArishiaNishi, Ezikleyici.

For "Trial of Jodi Arias": AzureCitizen(myself), Darkness Shines, 70.36.137.19, 138.162.128.53, BabbaQ, Billturner1983, Transcendence, Geebee2.

As they say, outcomes should not be determined by an all out "vote", although I know that happens all too frequently. I'm an "involved" party obviously; I just want to make sure the policy-based rationales are considered when it's a close 5:4 ratio split, and no policy based arguments have been offered in support of a "Murder of" consensus choice over "Trial of". Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I re-read the discussion and added to the close. I can't say you'll be happy though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, that's okay.  :) I am puzzled however by the statement "It was asserted without evidence that Trial of Jodi Arias was more common, but given the discussion below, it seems that there is no preference in reliable English-language sources as it relates to Misplaced Pages titles as required by WP:COMMONNAME." Did you see this material provided in the "Trial of Jodi Arias" arguments on Google News having 11,700 hits for "Trial of Jodi Arias", while "Murder of Travis Aelxander" had 188? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with using Google search result. Saying quotes search X returns more results than quotes search Y doesn't tell us anything about which is a better Misplaced Pages title. See WP:GHITS, WP:GNUM, and WP:GOOG. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I was generally aware of those essays (thanks); if I may point out, WP:GHITS says "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages." This means we shouldn't be using Google hits to establish notability in a deletion discussion - a point on which I'm sure you'd agree. If you read the first part of that sentence again, however, it says that Google is useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, i.e., WP:COMMONAME when trying to decide between article title X and article title Y. WP:COMMONAME itself even refers to using Google, and suggests searching Google Books and Google News (which I did). As WP:GHITS is an essay and WP:COMMONAME is a policy, wouldn't this mean Google News searches are relevant as evidence? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That RFC

I think there is some misunderstanding here. The archived Misplaced Pages:PUMP/POLICY#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions were to remove the offending piece, not to insert it. I could not remove it because the text was defended by editors from WP:ANIME. A record of this is at #article content, but Lord Sjones23 noted in a newRFC section about it going to the pump. It is WP:CREEPy and that's why when the argument was made I opted for removal of the section instead of alteration. Consensus in this case is to remove, not add the offending bit. Ironically, this issue was the original reason for Dragonball Z to be deleted back in 2008, as seen by Talk:Dragon Ball: "The Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT articles were merged due to a consensus. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation violates WP:MOS-AM." Here's the link to that discussion:Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge The two RFC's that were opened are connected to this issue; both decided by policy prior to a formal close, but it needs a formal close to remove that offending section of MOS-AM and recreate the Dragonball Z article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong has insinuated that I have 'blatantly asked you to close in my favor' for the MOS-AM RFC. Multiple edits as a whole at these diffs. I've ignored Ryulong's accusation, as it is clearly false; focusing instead on the matter at hand. While I believed the second Dragon Ball RFC to be also in consensus after the policies were addressed, when I recreated the article, Ryulong objected and merged it back. The Dragon Ball RFC has directly used the flawed MOS-AM 'policy' as the reason to merge the articles back in 2008. While it may seem redundant, I guess that RFC which seemed to have consensus as well will need to be formally closed by an admin, but should I remove the close request because the discussion has started again? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The closure of the VPP discussion does not mean that Dragon Ball Z should be split from Dragon Ball. There is no consensus, yet, in that discussion. If anything, there seems to be more opposition to a split than support. Wait a bit and see if any new, uninvolved users add any new comments. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understood and tried to make it clear, but both RFCs were tied and the only objections came on MOS-AM with silence for weeks. I'll continue to watch it, I'm going to try and address their concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Brand New

Hi - would you mind explaining your rationale for the close at Talk:Brand New? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. There was clearly no consensus in the discussion that the band was the primary topic. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind expanding on that a bit? Especially given the directions at Misplaced Pages:RMCI#Determining_consensus, would you explain how you evaluated the various arguments by people in light of WP policy and came to the conclusion that there was no consensus? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a successful WP:RM in January 2013. Another RM so soon after that would require overwhelming support to be successful. To start another RM so soon after the last one closed against your position wreaks of asking the other parent. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, and normally I would never open another RM so soon. But did you not see the reason for reopening the RM? We had a full month of statistics that were only possible because of the first RM, that showed conclusively that 90% of the people going to the new dab page went from there to the band article. We did not have those stats in the first RM - all anyone had was arguments and intuition. I was naive to think that the !supporters of the first RM would recognize that, but I was hoping that the closer would have seen and recognized that - especially when the rationale for opening a new RM was explicitly pointed out by others - and then applied that to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument. I don't mean to be a pain, but would you please evaluate the second RM on its own merits and explain how a close of "no consensus" fits with Misplaced Pages:RMCI#Determining_consensus? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds as if you want me to discount some of the comments with which you personally disagree. I cannot do that. I have no dog in this fight. If you think there were procedural problems with the closure, you should request a review at WP:MR. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I want at all. What I'd like is to see your evaluation of the arguments given at the RM, how they fit with WP policies and guidelines (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in particular), and, given that evaluation, how you came to the conclusion that there was no consensus to move under WP policy. That's what WP:RMCI is all about. I'm not trying to imply that you were wrong - I have no basis to even ask that question until I know what your process and thinking were. Dohn joe (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - given the result here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F, would you please provide your evaluation of the policy-based arguments at the Brand New RM, and how that led you to a no-consensus conclusion? That's all I've been asking for. Dohn joe (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That gives a much clearer picture of your thinking. In contentious RMs, and especially when someone has asked you for your process, that's the sort of thing that goes a long way - people want to see that close of the discussion was given as much thought as the discussion itself. Dohn joe (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding another "thanks" for Nathan's belated addition of comments demonstrating that xe gave more than just a passing thought to xyrs decision. I see there has been some broader discussion on Nathan's closes in general, and efforts like this on RM closes should go far towards advancing wider acceptance of these closes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Two other RMs......

Hi, saw you closed the Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc and Tsilhqot'in RMs....wondering if you saw the ones at Talk:Lillooet people and Talk:Kutenai people and if so, why you didn't move them as well; same arguments/evidence apply. The former has a CfD pending that such a move would resolve; and the other risks a speedy to move it to a wholly unsatisfactory catname if left unresolved.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I had seen the first and it looked more complicated than the others. I just closed the second. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's all the same logic/content, just the space where most of the arguing and what-not was going on; my last sections there are the same as in the other four; the government citations, the reporter's style guide, and somewhere in there (in all of them) either pfly or montanabw had come up with the essay from the federal Translation Services Branch, which I then added to the other four.....St'at'imc is in fact probably the clearest-cut case; but all these were unwarranted speedies and obviously controversial; I won't go on about it, suffice to say it's anomalous now, and part of the issue is that if someone speedies the category there will be things like "People from the Lillooet people in Lillooet".......in all cases other than Thompson/Nlaka'pamux, the duality of the "English" name to well-known placenames/towns was part of the rationale for reversion, and also why these articles weren't titled that way in the first place....Skwxwu7mesh ast least was RM'd, if with bad logic, to Squamish people, but then some eager-beaver changed the Skwxu7mesh category to Category:Squamish, which anyone in BC is going to assume is for Squamish, British Columbia (which is named after these people and their original home in the region, after they migrated northwards (they're related to the Nooksack people in Washington by origin). St'at'imc is close to home for me, I know these people; I'm from Shalalth and have lived in Lillooet and have a good two or three dozen St'at'imc friends...Skookum1 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was planning on getting back to this, but it appears someone else beat me to it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deflationary theory of truth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deflationary theory of truth. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed RfC close

An editor changed your closure at WT:CSD, without notice. I don't know if this happened with your approval or not, but I thought you should be aware of the situation. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 21:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Changed it back. I found it more than a little odd that the two time frames were different. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion down there was about the specific time frame, that was on top. The discussion about ones with mainspace promise were just that, about mainspace promise, and weren't about the time frame. I think 1 year was mentioned because that was just the status quo at the moment. Ramaksoud2000 16:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the 1 year length was used because it was the status quo as well. However, that's what was proposed and that's what everyone supported. Not one supporter said they would support a shorter term than 1 year. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DPT-MPH

Thank you for moving pages following discussions. However, I think the is a minor mistake here : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=DPT-MPH.&diff=556768410&oldid=554711348 as it should not be "DPT-MPH." but "DPT-MPH"... Thanks a lot if you can correct that ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzonaga (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Those both look exactly the same to me. You can go ahead and change it yourself though. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Article RM closure of Sabine Pass Light

I was trying to figure out how to bring in more people into the discussion and I posted this as I feel I provided more than enough evidence on the RM and the discussion slowed. I feel that the closure was extremely premature. There is an issue of the discussion being thrown in concerning all other article naming. I feel this does not in any way mean all articles on Misplaced Pages have to adhere to a project naming policy in disregard to an abundance of references and Misplaced Pages policy. I do not know Misplaced Pages politics but it says I can contest the closure. I am asking you to review the closure and the merit of the evidence per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on overall project naming. It also says I can contest at another location and I will try to look into this. I just think I should present my case to you as the admin closure first. Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was unclear as to a specific policy and other than WP:COMMON there is WP:CONLIMITED that states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.". In a comment Mr. Mangoe maintains, "We have chosen to prefer the USCG terminology of "X Light" because it is not incorrect (being official), because it is commonly used (even if not the most common usage), and because we feel that consistency in naming is more important than subservience to a principle which is not absolute anyway.". I provided many instances of references for the correct use of Sabine Pass Lighthouse and the main argument against was that the use of "light" was because of a 13 year use by the USCG, Mr. Russ Rowlett, and a project choice. Mr. Rowlett used the USCG naming in lists but the proper name in many instances. I would also like to point out that none of the many references I supplied were argued against or refuted. The problem is that Misplaced Pages consensus to use the common name is a broad community consensus as opposed to a project naming decision. Policy also states, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.", and I feel if it is looked at closely, the RM was to correct a naming to be in line with Misplaced Pages policy. I also feel the project is incorrectly mass naming articles but that was not within the scope of a RM for a particular article. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I would like to point out that I came across the move discussion as it was listed in the backlog section of WP:RM, and as an uninvolved user closing the discussion, I had no prior involvement in the article nor have any conflict of interest in the article. Policy-wise, besides some unwavering policies set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation, most of our policies and guidelines are developed though a collaborative process that mostly tries to write down current best practices. Our naming guidelines are one such area where there are no hard rules. A particular article title must take into account the guidance provided at the WP:MOS (especially WP:TITLE), but in particular instances, talk page discussion may decide to deviate from the guidelines. Such cases are rare and usually controversial.

However, in this particular case, I saw no compelling reason to ignore the MOS, and in particular WP:COMMON. On the contrary, those opposing the move showed that there was no common name such that a move to Sabine Pass Lighthouse was either inappropriate or unneeded.

At this time, I am unable to reverse the closure, as I think the consensus was clearly against the move. If you would like a more formal review, you may utilize WP:MR. If you wish more outside participation in the move discussion, perhaps you'd like to open an RfC, which last 30 days. RMs usually only last 7 days before they are closed. Either option is open to you and I would take no offense if you choose to explore either option. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and yes I feel there was not enough uninvolved participation. I guess after I open a RFC I will have to individually list the hundreds of references in support of the far more common name. I feel that making a Misplaced Pages- wide blanket name change is not a good thing for Misplaced Pages or the articles involved. I just feel that one person (Mr. Rowlett) and one government entity (discounting any that mirror the USCG), against the many references that I did provide, is too compelling to warrant a name that is not even appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Move Request: Star Blazers 2199 → Space Battleship Yamato 2199

So, I saw that you closed the discussion with the result of 'Moved', but the article was not moved. Was this a mistake? It still needs to be moved. --Tarage (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply forgot. Thanks for the ping. Should be taken care of now. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please move List of Star Blazers 2199 episodes too. Raamin (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock climbing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese, John Long and European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BP RfC

Hi Nathan, just a note to say thank you for the RfC close. Your time is much appreciated. SlimVirgin 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind note! :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Prospekt's March

I know you closed the move discussion for Prospekt's March, but it does not appear you actually moved the page. Hot Stop 02:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be taken care of now. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Decision not to close the discussion on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I hope you don't take offense to me challenging this close. The more I think about the closure, the more problem I have with it. I lay out my rational on the administrator notice board. That stated, I understand why you did what you did.Casprings (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

Hi Nathan, again just a note to say thank you for the close. The replies weren't always easy to interpret, so your efforts are much appreciated. SlimVirgin 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reply; I got waylaid by ANI. Many thanks. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversial close by non-admin

Your contribution and efforts appreciated, but given the high level of controversy at Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013, it's not appropriate for a non-admin to close that discussion. Would you mind reverting your close, please? Thank you. --B2C 01:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Admins have abandoned WP:RM and have left it to non-admins to close them. As they have done with other processes that do not actually require admins. Take it to WP:MR. Or discuss the merits here. Either one, but users involved in the discussion reverting an uninvolved user's close is unacceptable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reverted you and don't plan to. But the abandonment of WP:RM by admins is news to me. It's certainly not reflected at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure, which is clear about it being inappropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion where consensus or lack of consensus is not clear, which this one surely is. Before going to AN/I, I'll ask you one more time, please revert your inappropriate close. --B2C 01:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move. Therefore it wasn't moved. Seems uncontroversial to me. I will not revert the closure. Take it to ANI if you'd like. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:National Association for the Advancement of Colored People#Requested move

I appreciate your efforts, but why was the discussion closed as "not moved"? Can't it be "no consensus to move" or something? Why not relist? There were three supports and three opposes. Proponents argue the commonality, while opponents argue the value of the full meaning outside the U.S. I hope it's not a supervote, is it? --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite questions. "Not moved" is simply a description of the action taken. In this case, there was "no consensus", so the article was "not moved". There was substantial discussion over the full 7 day period, so I saw no need to relist the discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This was is even worse. Sorry, but I'm going to AN/I. For both of these. I've closed RMs before, and I've gotten burned for closing less controversial ones than these. It's really got to be clear for a non-admin to close. --B2C 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Adminship is not magic pixie dust. I'm going to bed, so see you at ANI tomorrow where these two discussions will be closed as no consensus / not moved. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here is the AN/I: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F. --B2C 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This appears done now. ANI closed as:

In most discussions, non-admin closure works just as well as an admin close if done properly. Any non-admin closing a discussion needs to understand they are performing an administrative function and they will be held to the same standard of accountability. This means including providing enough information in the close that a passerby can determine the true consensus at a glance, and that those who participated have faith that the close was a reflection of the discussion and not a "supervote".

The existing closures have been clarified or can be by another admin if needed. Closing discussion as all major points have been addressed and no other action is needed at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)"

-Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin closes

A large minority of the community is against non-admin closures, a position I don't share. There are times when a discussion is best closed by an admin, but more often, the admin bit itself isn't what makes the difference between a good or bad close. One of the best lessons to take from the ANI discussion is that non-admin closes are (and should be) held to the same standards that admin closes are, in every way. This is why we expect the same quality and accountability in them. This includes answering questions and general conduct if questioned. In the most contentious discussions, it is often wiser to simply pass and let someone with more closing experience close it. I strongly encourage non-admin closes of most discussions as a way to blur the lines between admin and non, and I hope you continue to do them when it is appropriate. Like any other task here (administrative or editorial), it takes a little practice. If I can help, feel free to ask. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have fairly extensive experience closing contentious RfCs. See above. I usually try to error on the side of explaining more in the closes than is necessary. I have never had one of my closes overturned by the community. When I started doing them awhile back, a big fuss was made, just like this. It eventually died down and now it is common for non-admin to close RfCs and other talk page discussions without them being summarily overturned. I expect the same to happen for requested moves, but it will take time before the holdouts that think admins have some special divining power to read and summarize discussions realize that non-admins are just as capable. It might have been you who offered some good advice to me when I started closing RfCs. If I ever need help, you will be my first stop. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. IMHO, the perfect close is concise, and the reader assumes you are an admin by the certainly, clarity and calm authority in your words. This is why you get "I thought he WAS an admin" at RfAs. In move discussions, adding the extra material ie: "Clear consensus to move per WP:COMMONNAME, already performed, will leave article cleanup to others" really helps. Many, many users aren't familiar with the policies and methods, you have to help them out and keep your closes universal so anyone clearly understands what just happened and why. AFDs usually don't require that. As for the drama of questioning and "you did this wrong!!!1"....try being an admin... Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you offered... would you mind looking at the RfC at Talk:List of vegetarians? Two closers edit-conflicted on the close. Mine came is second. I asked on WP:AN/RFC and the other closers talk page for advice of what to do, but haven't received a response yet. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Without reading all the discussion (that is a lot of detail...) I will just that most times, I go to the closer's talk page instead. Adding a second close isn't unheard of and I would say doing so is within policy and there are certainly cases where it is the right call. Be forewarned that not everyone agrees, particularly with non-admin. If the closes are 100% polar opposites and one is an admin, defer to the admin and take it to review. That is more about preventing drama than being right or wrong on the merits, and understanding that admin are vetted to do closes, and the community "tolerates" NAC but not dueling over the close. The problem with dual and conflicting closes is that it takes away what the close is supposed to be: the final word. In contentious cases where people have been waiting 30 days for it to end, they often will not have a sense of humor about it. Again, this is about the practical realities, not policy. I would avoid them even if I disagree with the close in all but the most unusual of circumstances. Often, the drama that it causes is worse than a bad close, which can be reverted at review. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 23:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeking policy advice, but what to practically do in this case. As I said when I added my close, I only did so because there was an edit-conflict between the two closers. I would never seek to overturn another uninvolved users close unilaterally. For one, I would intensely dislike it if someone did that to me. Secondly, I do not believe there is a policy that allows that, absent an obviously wrong conclusion. Third, I trust that when other users state they are uninvolved, they really are and they came to the article knowing little about it and their close represents their view as they read the discussion. I would like to assume that is how others view my closes as well. In this case, because we edit-conflicted, I simply added my summary, then posted to the other closer's user talk page and the relevant administrator's noticeboard on how to proceed. If I was asked by any uninvolved user to simply remove my close, I would do so. I do not wish to cause drama, but I do wish to do the right thing, even if it takes a few days to sort it out. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think you did anything wrong here, I'm giving a broad opinion of multiple situations based on my experience so you can decide for yourself. There isn't a rulebook for these because it is so rare. In this case, you've contacted the other closer and you are waiting. If after a couple of days you don't get a reply, I guess you would need to take it to review, which would assume the first close is the "official" close. The only other possible solution is to withdraw your second close, but I don't see that as being necessary, it is just an option. Other than those that, I'm not sure what else can be done. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan, I'm involved in that RfC, so this is not an outsider's comment. Even so, I think I would also say, if I were an uninvolved admin, that the best thing is to leave it now. There were really only two commonsense options: (1) remove all the porn-star images because there's no reason to include that profession in a short list of women, or (2) retain one because there's no reason not to include it. The first closing editor saw (2) as the consensus, and I've carried that out by removing all but one.

He then dealt with the wider responses (should there be any images; if so how should we choose them), and suggested we hold a second RfC to decide, so someone may get round to doing that. It won't be me; I've had enough of that discussion to last a lifetime. Holding a second RfC is consistent with your close, which was basically "remove all the images and start again." So people have a way forward now if they want to pursue it.

As Dennis said, what people want after a 30-day RfC is closure, so the job of the closing editor is to provide that, even if it's necessarily imperfect. SlimVirgin 00:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:CHAMP

There were two supports and two opposes, and I cannot figure out how opponents' arguments are more compelling than proponents'. Either give a rationale, or relist it. (If relist, then put a fresh sig between proposal message and date next time.) --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just took another quick look and decided to relist it. My thinking was it was a borderline case and with 3 supports and 2 opposes didn't really constitute a good consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins

"Admins have abandoned WP:RM and have left it to non-admins to close them."

Hi Nathan,

I have looking over your past comments, especially about non admin closes. Note: I do not oppose NACs, except at DRV, though I do think they should be easily challenged. When challenged, and upheld, you should enjoy the compliment.

Why are you not an admin? You appear to be brave enough.

In any case, I hope you continue to close discussions, especialy RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose not enough edits to the MediaWiki namespace. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose admin score does not meet my requirements. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lack of userpage. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose blocked 3 years ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unable or unwilling to write FA. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't participate at . -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose participates to much at . -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose frequently speaks mind. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose votes at RfA and AfD don't follow consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inappropriate username. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose didn't answer my questions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose said something mean about me once. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose wrote a stupid essay. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose no barnstars. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never had one of my closes actually overturned. Lots of complaining because I'm not an admin, but I can take it. I guess I'm getting a big head. Add that to the above list. Having the tools would be useful sometimes, but honestly, I don't really feel like I need them. And I don't view them as a status symbol. So there's no reason. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I like your dissent essay. I also like you closes, a lot more of which I've noticed in hindsight. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your activity

In the last year you have been a big editor of many pages about rock climbing (I have these pages in watchlist). When I see a problem, like for navbars, or Daniel Woods, or "rock climbing", I simply comment or correct it. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A link on ANI

Howdy. I was browsing ANI and noticed that you posted a link to a clip from The Terminal in the discussion taking place at . I think linking to that video may go against the legal policy at WP:LINKVIO. What are your thoughts on this?--Rockfang (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That you have too much time on your hands. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That may be the case. I'm on summer break from college and I go back in the fall. I apologize for bringing this up.--Rockfang (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Delete it if you think it's against policy. But I don't think there's anything wrong (morally or legally) with adding a link to a short video clip from a copyrighted movie. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE

That is probably the one you were thinking of.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty obvious. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hi Nathan, can you discuss the issue with Flyer22 on the talk page Talk:Homosexuality#Edit war before reverting again. Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Appears not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

??? Section was up 4 minutes before your reply here. Check again. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that I had already reverted again. I replied, though probably not well enough. I'll try not to revert again. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning was posted before i read your reply. You are at 3 reverts though in 24 hours. Be very careful at this point. Join the discussion here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Also, with an edit summary of "edit warring", I thought it'd be clear I knew what I was doing. Also, that's 2 reverts. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

123. I don't usually template people but you've reverted 3 times in less than 5 hours and it could have been avoided. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

3 is not a revert. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:3RR, it's a revert. You undid Flyer's work and your response appears to be an attempt to "game" the system to escape this (a blockable policy violation if i recall). This is sidestepping the issue anyway. Edit warring does not require a 4th revert to have someone blocked. I'm trying to get a wording consensus between you two (or more). Not get into an argument or have either of you blocked. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing this talk page in future. I don't take kindly to new users lecturing me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

vandalism

There was an edit to asexuality that appears to be vandalism and not that of an experienced editor- ]. Just letting you know in case your account was compromised Bhny (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I could be like WP:NOTVAND. But then someone would WP:BLUELINK don't be a WP:DICK and WP:DIS WP to make a WP:POINT. Then I'd be all like I wasn't a WP:GIANTDICK so don't WP:BLOCK me please WP:ADMIN. I wasn't WP:SPIDERMAN. {{block}}. {{unblock}}. Denied. Crap. Guess I have to go outside now. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)