Jump to content

User talk:HundredVisionsAndRevisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Headington Rye Oxford

[edit]

Hi Ivey. You carried out a rename requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests of Headington School Oxford to Headington Rye Oxford. This is because the school has merged with another school and the new school has a new name. Could you have another look at this? My view is that the post-merge school is a different school and, if notable, should have a separate article. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings here, and if there's any consensus that it should not have been renamed, I'm happy to revert the move.
Based on the fact that both the ole Rye school website and the new combined name website both redirect to the Headington website, it seems like the Headington identity is the one that will be carried forward. I would lean more towards merging Rye St Antony School into the Headington Rye Oxford page.
But again, I've got almost no knowledge of this area. Moving this to Talk:Headington Rye Oxford so others can weigh in. Ivey (talk - contribs) 14:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Island

[edit]

Hi, thank you for moving this article listed at WP:RMT. I'll note, however, that you missed moving Talk:Île Nôtre-Dame. 162 etc. (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was really weird, Move+ said it moved the talk page but then it had pages redirecting to themselves. Thanks for noticing, and hopefully it's fully correct now. Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Île Nôtre-Dame" vs "Île Notre-Dame" tripped me up. Thanks again. Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Reyes

[edit]

Hi, thank you for contributing at WP:RMT. I urge you to revert this move; see Ramon Reyes. 162 etc. (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I agree, and think Ramón Reyes should target Ramon Reyes instead, and get a hatnote. Ivey (talk - contribs) 21:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fráňa Zemínová

[edit]

Hi, I strongly disagree with closing the RM on the Fráňa Zemínová page as no consensus. It cannot be concluded based on a vote that ended 1:1. The original creator of the page was unable to defend that the article's title he chose is a common name. After I wrote many examples where my suggestion is used in English-language sources, there has been no response, no proof that the original title is a common name. Therefore, I ask you to reconsider the outcome of the discussion. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, requested moves and other discussions aren't votes. But if they were, 1:1 would be the definition of no consensus.
Since it was closed no consensus, there's nothing stopping starting a new move request at any time. If you think it's important and have the data to support the move, I would encourage you to try again. Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point, it is not voting. As WP:RMCIDC says, Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.. For this reason, I question your closing of the discussion – it was not closed based on arguments, but based on votes. I don't want another seven-day repeat, I've already provided enough arguments for the page to be moved now. FromCzech (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion that I closed based on votes.
Also from WP:RMCIDC: No consensus should be used when there is neither a consensus to move nor a consensus to keep the current title. This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides, without any clear reason to move the page found in the discussion.
I found that both participants had strong arguments and data to back them up. I know you don't like the argument the other editor made, but that doesn't mean it isn't equally valid.
If you believe I have acted inappropriately here, I guess take it to a MRV - but that seems like overkill when you can just start a new RM. Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I directly contradicted my opponent's arguments. His main argument was a mere minute internet search, not proving occurrence in reliable sources but only quantity (according to the parameters entered by him), while I spent dozens of minutes on detailed analysis. In total, I cited 16 different independent reliable sources, while he cited only one (which, as it turned out, supports my proposal and not his). Therefore, I find it inappropriate to label the opposing parties' arguments as "equal" and that "outside sources were found on both sides".
Ok, I'll probably start a new RM. I just wanted to describe my perspective on the matter, since I put a lot of time and effort into that discussion, and to prevent similar situations in the future. FromCzech (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

[edit]
UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.
Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
And other new research findings.
Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.
With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.
It's an easy one.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Holidays speedy deletion

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your attention on the easyJet Holidays page even if not decision I'd like. I'd appreciate it if you gave the justifications in the talk section a read, perhaps it warrants deletion review at least? Interested in your reasoning regardless. Thanks Jlbedits (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
This time "not merely negative".
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
Unexpected news!
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
And other recent publications.
When to walk away.
Rest in peace.
Celebrities, deaths and software.
All invited!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 October 2025

[edit]
And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges.
Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.
Who was bumped and why?
...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia".
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Don't get too excited before you read this.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

[edit]

Hi HundredVisionsAndRevisions. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
  • Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HundredVisionsAndRevisions&oldid=1319933894"