User talk:MegaSloth

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|MegaSloth}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 5 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulbs. Since you had some involvement with the Lightbulbs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one solicitor on the dab page, so I do not see the need for the moves and changes to the redirects. Also, we do not use honorifics such as "Sir" in article titles. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also use common name + disambiguator normally, not first name, middle name, surname. Please re-read the MOS page you linked to in your edit summaries, and undo your moves. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the moves for you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. not using "Sir", I will verify this. I may hav erred. Re. using middle names, the quoted section explicitly uses George W. Bush vs. George H. W. Bush as examples.Theobald David Mathew seems fine to me. Also nore the parenthetically disambiguated names will still exist as redirects if needed.MegaSloth (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. you undid th emoves; that's fine I'll make requested move requess when I have the time. Thanks for letting me know, I was wondering what was happening. MegaSloth (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(it wasn't a complete waste of thime; those redirects were needed anyway :) MegaSloth (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush examples use initials not middle names, and British people are rarely, if ever, known by all three names, nor do they commonly use a middle initial. DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines that state

a) "Sir" is not a useful disambiguator (I expect you're spot on here but it would be nice to locate it)

b) middle initials are fine as disambiguators but not middle names

Thank you.

Also, with regard to the solicitor, I have no doubt in a narrow technical sense, only the one Theobald was actually a solicitor, however I submit that the technical niceties between different precise ways to practise law are lost on the average Wikipedia user so a link to disambiguation is correct.

MegaSloth (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLESINTITLES covers the use of Sir - "Styles, such as "His Grace" or "HRH", are not used in the page titles of biographical articles. Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Professor", etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Mahatma Gandhi)." It is on the same page that you linked to in your edit summaries. The section you linked to says "When there is a usual way of distinguishing two people of the same name, use it" and "If there is no usual form of conventional disambiguation, place a disambiguating tag in parentheses after the name." Now none of the people in question are known by all three names, and none of them are known by their initials (unlike the Bush dynasty). See WP:INITS (also on the page to which you linked). As for the solicitor, I think it is perfectly clear in British English, which is what applies in this case. Now, Theobald Mathew (lawyer) would be ambiguous. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, before I was aware of your general objections to my desired page moves to the Theobald Mathew pages, I had requested in good faith the move of Theobald Mathew (temperance reformer) to Father Mathew; this request was completed during our discussions, I only just thought to remove the request but was too late. As you can guess I don't have administrator priveleges to revert this, assuming you disagree with that move as well, please feel free to revert it (at least it creates another needed redirect). Sincere apologies, MegaSloth (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to abandon my attempts to rename or redirect these articles for the time being. I will notify you if I decide to resume pursuing them. It is likely that this would be through a formal process since there appears little likelihood of any agreement. Many thanks again for your involvement and continued patience. MegaSloth (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]