User talk:Mellohi!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heads of government of republics
• Template:Heads of government of monarchies
• Template:Heads of state of republics

I made them as an experiment to see if the template is useful or not. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Unfortunately, I cannot request speedy deletion of these under G7 (author request) because other people significantly contributed to the templates too (by adding countries and altering listed heads). In addition, I cannot delete them myself since I do not have administrator privileges. Let the TfD discussion conclude in favour of deletion first. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NAC closures are supposed to be for non-controversial debates. Almost by definition, "no consensus" means that it is controversial. Please self revert. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition against non-administrators closing anything as "no consensus". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But NAC closes should not be controversial. In addition, the discussion was still ongoing, the last comment actually being from today (and I myself was writing a comment when you closed this. That close was inappropriate and I kindly request that you undo it. There is a good probability that a consensus may still be reached with further discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted so that you can reply to other participants, as you have claimed to be edit conflicted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You closed an RfD discussion as no consensus, which defaulted to keeping the redirect. However, nobody in the deletion discussion supported keeping the redirect. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A closure of "no consensus" with no other action is nonsensical for a discussion like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Ivy Road where no one supports the status quo. Please see this section for more details. Randykitty also gives good advice in the above section; if it has a chance of being controversial, non-admins should not be closing it. Please reverse your closure. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undone and relisted. I forgot that somebody had to explicitly voice support of the status quo to call "no consensus". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, that's not a fair summary of when to call a "no consensus" either, but I digress. Anyway, I'm returning because I also don't think relisting the discussion is the way to go. This makes it the fourth(!) relist, and WP:RELIST recommends, in bold, that in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Sorry again. Also undone that (have trout been raining over my house today?). That was caused by a habit of mine to autopilot to relisting when I self-overturn. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Forgot to ping back. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one should be relisted too. It's got the same divide and same argument as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Functional Ecology – journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will change it to a bundle. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I sent a request to change my name, I'd like if you could accept it. E.S. Cohen - א.ס. כהן (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mellohi, I noticed a couple of your recent AfD relists seem to be done just for the sake of it. Not every AfD needs to be relisted simply because it is older than seven days. Please have a look at WP:RELIST. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. I will be more careful in AfD relists from now on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mellohi, I appreciate your openness to feedback, and today I also saw your relist in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Parr. I noticed the relist because it seemed unusual for a comment to be added in the first relist, but there are also some parts of your comment that seem to indicate it may be best to leave this discussion to an admin, per WP:NACPIT. For example, per WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure, and your comment begins by describing the discussion as a "deadlock" and then describes participants as "keepers" and "redirectors" without noting a comment from a participant who has not !voted. Your comment also does not seem to address why [you] did not consider the debate sufficient, per WP:REFLIST, including because it does not appear to offer guidance to participants about further discussion. This seems like an example of a discussion where it is better to participate as a !voter or let an admin review it due to the substantial discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will from now on either a) vote/comment or b) leave it alone or c) ask on WP:CR if there is such a blatantly divided article deletion discussion. It's a bad habit inherited from my RM experience, where no-consensus seems to be an extreme last resort and relists are used liberally whenever an outcome is not obvious. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience with RM, but it sounds different than AfD - and I just reviewed your AfD stats, and while this is an imperfect tool, it looks like you do not have much experience as a !voter or nominator at AfD. I appreciate your comment here, and I encourage you to reverse this relist due to the nature of the AfD discussion so an admin can review it, and to consider becoming more familiar with the AfD process as a participant before attempting further NAC actions at AfD. Thank you again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mellohi!,

I don't want to dampen your obvious current enthusiasm for administrative duties on the project but I don't think that you shoud be closing discussions at Deletion review. You really have only been consistently active here since May 2022 and usually these DR discussions are closed by senior editors/admins who have a deep knowledge about Wikipedia policies. For example, I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2013, have been an admin since 2015 and I don't think I would close a Deletion review discussion until I had a lot of experience participating in these discussions (which I haven't done yet). You need to have experience as a participant first before you step up to closing discussions.

Some of these closures might seem obvious to you but I think you should really leave them to editors and admins with decades of experience working on the project and handling complicated discussion closures. I honestly do appreciate the work you are doing but I don't want you to spread yourself too thin, take on too advanced responsibilities and find yourself sanctioned. I've seen it happen before but it doesn't need to happen if you gradually work your way up to more responsibilities instead of jumping into new areas. Thank you for your contributions to the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mellohi,

For templates, you have to remove all transclusions before a template can be deleted. This is the responsibility of the TFD closer, not the admin who deletes the page. Have you reviewed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions? Particularly, If the decision is Delete, the template can be deleted by an administrator after all instances of the template used in pages have been removed. You should become familiar with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell before you close any more TFD discussions. Deleting a template or category often involves bots and is VERY different than deleting an article or redirect. Please look into the details of how TFD works before tagging any more templates for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I do always check for transclusions before sending my closures to the ready-to-delete cell. I usually post my closure in other cells like the subst and orphan cells if I find transclusions, but this time with the ABL template I chose to manually remove the transclusion before listing the template in the "Ready for deletion" cell. I thought I did remove the template's sole transclusion that time (by substing). Did I miss others? If I did miss any, I'll use the other cells more from now on to prevent this error from happening again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Talk:Clayton Lake#Requested move 9 June 2022 as consensus to move but you don't appear to have moved it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened was I meant to submit a technical request (I did not have page mover permissions back then) but somehow failed or forgot to do it. Don't expect such an omission to happen again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, we all forget to do things sometimes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mellohi!

Are you sure it was correct to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Ramsay as keep when there were two !votes for delete and one for keep?

In the end, I don't necessarily think the article needs to be deleted based on the sources added. But there was not a consensus for keep. Then again, perhaps you were right to assess the sources and say it should be kept. I'm aware we don't go on a simple !vote count, but it seems perhaps it should have been a no consensus close given the doubt over how substantial some of the sources were.

Also pinging User:Liz who relisted the discussion in case they have an opinion.

Thanks! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarchOfTheGreyhounds: Self-reverting to vote or relist. I think I had interpreted Joseph's comment as supporting a keep even though he did not formally vote, which led to my confusion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As it happens, this is purely a procedural point, as I've now changed my !vote to keep after looking at the new sources. Thanks for engaging! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I closed the discussion as "Keep" as well. But your additional comment was a factor in my decision, MarchOfTheGreyhounds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mellohi: How goes it? That was a WP:BADNAC on the above nomination. It wasn't a snow keep. There was several dissenting voices. More so, I withdrew the nomination withdrawn, so the result should have been nomination withdrawn. Can you please go back and change it. I would also suggest you stop closing Afd's as you seem to be getting flak. Go back and change this please. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Several dissenting voices" that, for all but one redirect vote, retracted their !votes when the article was fixed. Slightly expanded the close reason to make that clear as why I called it SNOW. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a WP:BADNAC. You do not how to close Afd's. If the nomination is withdrawn, then the result is "nomination withdraw". If you see if it looks like all keep, then you make a statement afterwards that consensus seems to be for keep. You don't say its seems to be snowing? Please don't close anymore. I'll need to take you WP:ANI, otherwise. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to mention the closure on this AfD, and see that a discussion has already been started. It was not a snow keep, I for one was really on the fence as to whether the article should have been kept or not. Many if not most of us take our work/service at AfD very seriously and spend a lot of time looking into and reading any sources that are brought to the discussion. In some cases (not this AfD) hours are spent translating sources to be able to analyze their merit. It feels a bit dismissive to read "It seems to be snowing" rather than a more neutral statement. It also seemed unusual that it was closed as keep, when scope_creep had clearly withdrawn the nomination hours before the closure (based on sources that were found). Netherzone (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariatu Candé was also closed as a WP:SNOW keep - early, and despite a source analysis by the nom during the discussion. I would also echo Netherzone and encourage caution with AfD closures, especially early closures in discussions where sources are being translated and debated. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the feedback, I will be more careful in using WP:SNOW to close early. If non-keepers contest newly provided sources, no matter how many other participants are satisfied with the new sourcing, I will not call snow and will let the nomination pass 7 days naturally before closing as keep (or any other available closure outcome). I also now figure that my heuristic ratio of seeing whether an AfD should even be considered for snow-closing is too low and will increase it a bit. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Mellohi! As I review the guidelines, including WP:NACAFD and WP:SK#NOT, I am wondering if you will reverse your close of the Mariatu Candé AfD, because it appears that WP:SNOW is not an appropriate basis for an early closure. Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Mellohi, and to clarify my comment, WP:SNOW can be a valid early close, just not a speedy keep, but per WP:SK#NOT, may be controversial and additional care is warranted, so it seems better left to an admin. My apologies for not being more clear in my earlier comment. Beccaynr (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect for your efforts Mellohi, it seems from the comments on your talk page(s) over the past few months that there may be a pattern of problematic closures. It goes beyond just being more careful in using WP:SNOW to close early. This is a little troubling, please do review the guidance on non-admin closures. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also  Done. Will also vote instead of NACing as well on potentially controversial close opportunities. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mellohi, I respectfully ask that you revert your closure of the requested move at Talk:Megan Huntsman. While it does have an oppose !vote, that editor later went on to say they're okay with a move to Megan Huntsman child murders and I think that "no consensus" was not the correct close here. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I also took into account Extraordinary Writ's comments about serial killers often having the article title be the killer's name. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writ was just providing information that could be useful to other editors. They ultimately said they don't have an opinion about whether the article should be moved. I don't want to take this to WP:AN so please consider reverting your closure. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the close anyway. I should have reverted first and then replied (that reply was meant to be an explanation of how I misread the room, not meant to vindicate my actions). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
You recently moved this page following a (brief) RM discussion; I wish to challenge this, for the reasons I have given there. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new move request to change it back, following the instructions at WP:RSPM; to challenge an RM is not to relitigate them by adding new arguments. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying: I am aware of the RM option; I was writing to you as the page mover to ask whether, in hindsight, you would see the result differently, given that the premise for the move was wrong, the N-gram given as evidence was misleading, and the responses (one in favour, one against) hardly constituted a consensus to move. Swanny18 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really do anything about the RM itself, as my permissions needed to undo the move expired a few days ago (and I will not reapply for them for a few weeks) so I cannot undo it myself now. But in hindsight I should have relisted it a second time at least. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; do you have any advice on how I should proceed with this? I had thought it would go to a Move Review, but that seems heavy-handed now. How about if I make a technical request to an administrator, with a view to relisting? Would you have a view on that? Swanny18 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea what to do myself; I'm currently consumed with homework and need to spend some time away from Wikipedia editing to get it done. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well, thanks anyway; Regards (and good luck with the homework!), Swanny18 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenal_State_Prison&type=revision&diff=1109259035&oldid=1108865728 2601:206:301:4A90:FC18:F524:E2FA:FD89 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive, who has created dozens of accounts and used even more IPs. The editing pattern is identical. IPs in southern California always pop up when a registered sock is blocked. The IPs seek meatpuppets with this message to evade a block or policies. Sundayclose (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did not fool me, thankfully. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayadu Lohar. A user recreated the page: Kayadu Lohar. DareshMohan (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article renominated at AfD. You have been pinged. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I request that you revert your close of the AfD. While there are indeed equivalent votes for either Redirect/Merge or Keep, the Keep votes are in my opinion lacking merit (WP:TRIVCOV argument) and AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. I would be fine with a No Consensus if an approved admin closed the discussion, but you are not an admin and it seems you have had numerous controversial closures just in the past month... I believe at the very least the proper interpretation would be to relist a 2nd time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I have reverted given that you have contested. But did you mean relist a third time? It was already relisted twice. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not notice the 2nd relist. So it was the right timing to close it, but I'd prefer an admin make the call. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this message here for you as sort of a precautionary measure. I had already had some concerns about how you were closing discussions, and the sections above on your talk page seem to validate my concern. I'm not sure how to remedy this or how to give you advice about one and appropriate close occurs, but I would imagine that there might be an administrator or editor or two who might be able to provide that information to you. There's an additional concern that I have regarding your interaction with other editors: I've noticed that it seems you don't seem to have a tendency to respond to editors when they ping you, especially when they are mentioning you and directly talking to you expecting an answer on some place other than your talk page. My concern with this is that it shows that you may not be editing in a way that seems to be the way Wikipedia works: As a community.

However, I'm not saying this to discourage you. I once had a bunch of road blocks myself that I had to overcome to be able to be a helpful (or, at least I think I am) non-admin discussion closer. Heck, we all make mistakes (and I know I still do), but the mistakes have to be learned from to make sure that they're not repeated. And also, maybe I'm only one noticing these issues, not sure. Anyways, cheers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I have brought some concerns about their deletion discussion closures to Mellohi's talk page, I wouldn't assume that every editor even sees pings. I depend on editors coming to my talk page if they have questions about my actions and I don't monitor pings. I believe there is even a way for editors to turn off these notifications completely (see H:PN). I wouldn't interpret a lack of response after being mentioned on a talk page somewhere on the project as a negative. And I think "directly talking to you" requires a visit to an editor's talk page.

That said, I've see Mellohi slow down their AFD closures which I think is a good idea. Their participation in deletion discussions has shifted after some of the comments made above. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been giving myself an at least 6-month moratorium on AfD closures starting a couple days ago due to realizing that both me and other AfD participants need a break from controversies about my AfD closures. Whenever I want a DRV closed I notify WP:CR (maybe AN could be more effective?).

Usually when I fail to respond to pings it's because I didn't think I had anything further productive to add. Will start replying to (or thanking) pings more often so that other editors at least know I read them and I acknowledge their contrary opinions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the way to go on the notifications. I imagine I'm not the only one who has been informing you of directly related, active discussions to concerns you bring up; participating in those (if applicable) is a good way to have your voice heard in a way that doesn't get lost on an unrelated page and then forgotten and/or never read/acknowledged. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but then the venue in which to reach the respective editor is unclear unless they declare it specifically. And I say this as an editor who made the mistake about a decade ago of pinging and mentioning an editor on multiple Wikimedia projects since I didn't know their notification preferences! The irate response immediately afterwards helped me learn my lesson quick! Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Steel1943, I've found that irate editors showing up to ones talk page to set one straight on some behavior they dislike can lead to changes in ones behavior on the project. You sometimes adapt your editing in order to reduce those unpleasant encounters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message re. PSPP in the 2022 Quebec election box. I changed the wording from "Ran in Camille-Laurin (won)" to just "Camille-Laurin" because that's how it's formatted in every other election where the leader won a seat they didn't represent beforehand (for instance Couillard in 2014, Legault and Francoise David in 2012, Amir Khadir in 2008, etc. Tholden28 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tholden28: Thanks for providing analogous examples; I thought they existed but was too inexperienced to remember them at the time, hence I did not revert you without asking you first. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just updating you here about Talk:Pakistani_Taliban#Requested_move_11_October_2022, because the nominator is a ban evader and it was only a few hours ago when he switched to a new IP, erased the evidence[1] and made another !vote[2] before you relisted the request.[3] Now there is another oppose. These factors may change your decision to relist the RM request. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems deadlocked, even discounting the IP votes. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.

Now here is another RM which you closed as "moved", but I think you forgot to move it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel I'm submitting a technical request for an admin to get to it; the article is move-protected. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mellohi! I was wondering if you would please help me move the article title for "Major League Baseball on FS1" to "MLB on FS1"? I am also asking for your help in moving the template title for "Template:Major League Baseball on Fox" to "Template:MLB on Fox". Please help me? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pageswapper tool is refusing to swap template names; I'm looking for help elsewhere. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm attempting to improve a few templates per a current deletion discussion. I was wondering whether inter-language wiki links are acceptable to be included in navigational templates. While I intend to create full English articles for all of the template's subjects, I doubt my output is fast enough for the template to have the minimum amount of links before being deleted. However, temporarily populating it with links to Spanish articles would probably make at least two meet the threshold. Am I free to do that or are there some manual of style requirements that might frown upon it? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisgabwoosh: I doubt that foreign-language interwiki links count to the 5-article requirement. Hence my suggestion to userfy (make these templates subpages of "User:Krisgabwoosh" instead of under the "Template:" namespace) until you managed to finish your work. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meant no harm by reopening the Move request while you were asleep, I didn't know and I apologize. DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On October 25, you closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#Template:IPvandal. I have no idea what was supposed to happen technically, but I do know that I'm still seeing "‹See TfM›" all over WP:AIV, which is annoying. What's going on? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to request that the nomination template be removed from the templates, as they're template-protected. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please expand on your closing statement at Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album)#Requested move 16 October 2022 to explain how you reached a finding of “no consensus”, particularly by showing that it was not based in counting !votes but in considering and weighing the arguments presented in terms of basis in policy and guidelines? Alternatively, you can of course re-open and let someone else evaluate the discussion like that. Thank you. —-В²C ☎ 18:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence showing the locus of the lack of consensus. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "There is no consensus on whether the exclusively pageviews-based argument is appropriate or a slam-dunk, with concerns of recentism brought up repeatedly."

Are you new to RMs? What you refer to obliquely as "the exclusively pageviews-based argument" is the basis for the vast majority of all primary topic decisions on WP. To question whether it's "appropriate" is, well, bizarre. The slam-dunk question is more reasonable. To that point, while concerns of recentism were brought up repeatedly, the reason those concerns were misplaced was explained in detail, without refutation. You seemed to ignore all that. If that's your reading of "no consensus", I ask you to revert. If you're new to RMs you shouldn't be closing discussions that are so controversial anyway. Or, I can take it to WP:MR. Up to you. Let me know. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 21:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite clearly no consensus to move, I don't see a consensus that PDAB should be used, its in general been controversial both locally and globally and although I don't do so commonly due to the possibility of forum shopping I would likely have taken it to MR if closed as moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had two of my moves reverted in move reviews because I used to refuse to call "no consensus" because I thought one side won purely on argument quality grounds when reviewers found that I misjudged the presented arguments or were not confident that sufficient consensus was reached. I've closed Folklore this way to cut down on repeating similar mistakes. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you learned the wrong lesson from those MR reversals. —-В²C ☎ 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely made the right closure there. It clearly had no consensus. And follows the status quo and the absolute norm. It should have been left to an admin, but an admin would have done the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping my move request! I appreciate you taking action and doing it! BhamBoi (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you're a very well established editor, and I just wanted to ask what the text in your signature means. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a line in Old Irish from Sanas Cormaic, meaning "although I reap blistered seaweed..." — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mellohi, You closed the move request and moved the page Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani to Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani.

In the discussion I added many good arguments, explanations and more than 50 sources that the name Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani in international media has referred to different people and caused confusion so that this name doesn’t follow WP:PRECISION: unambiguously define the topical scope of the article.

Could you please explain to me how you came to the decision and why it doesn’t violate WP:PRECISION?

Thanks in advance for your time and effort. Malia Green (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Draft:Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Malia Green (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mellohi!,

I just came across a move discussion regarding UPS that you closed last year and realized that I hadn't seen you around much lately. I used to run into you and your work all of the time but perhaps you have found more engaging activities off-wikipedia (I know there are many!). Any way, I hope you are well and are just busy with life. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mellohi! :) Were you the closer for the decision to move 'Souls (series)' to 'Dark Souls'?

I understand the reasoning behind the move, but I disagree with the consensus in that I think we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. As noted in the discussion we are still in strong need of an article discussing FromSoftware "Soulsborne" titles, because of their extensive similarities (even though I agree that calling the article 'Soulsborne' would be silly).

Although there is already an article 'Soulslike (video game genre)', the category of "soulslikes" is so broad that it does not do adequate justice to the commonalities of games of this style specifically created by FromSoftware. Conversely, not including such an article needlessly obscures the extensive similarities and common mechanics of these games to people learning about the background of these games for the first time, including in contrast to other games by FromSoftware such as the 'Armored Core' series.

Therefore, I believe we should once again have separate articles for "Souls" games and the Dark Souls series, and to that end I suggest we revive and expand the 'Souls (series)' article, under the same title or a slightly different one with slightly revised wording, to reduce workload and because it serves the intended purpose well. However, the article about "Souls" games would include discussion of all FromSoftware games with notable "Souls" mechanics, including Bloodborne and Elden Ring.

That said, I think it is very obvious that the Demon's Souls games and Dark Souls games have the most in common mechanically amongst these kinds of FromSoftware games, let alone within the entire genre of "soulslikes":

>They are based upon dark medieval fantasy specifically.

>They share similar game-play styles.

>They share many identical game mechanics.

>They share similar themes and settings.

>They involve the collection of literal souls as currency which have the exact same functionality.

>They can be considered spiritual successors to King's Field, but differ substantially from it in terms of game-play.

>They have been designed by FromSoftware, with even the 'Demon's Souls' remake using the same base code as the original.

Therefore, "core" Souls games discussed in the article would be the Demon's Souls games and the Dark Souls games, but the second half of the the article would also go into 'Bloodborne', 'Elden Ring', possibly 'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice', and future similar games, each in turn, and could go into the differences these games have with the more core Souls games from FromSoftware. (Obviously future games that are sufficiently similar to Demon's Souls and Dark Souls games could be instead included among the "core" games as well.) This would avoid creating an odd-sounding "Soulsborne" article while also addressing the very real need to discuss the common aspects of all these games. Not including discussion of Bloodborne, Elden Ring, and future games like them by FromSoftware was the weakness of the previous version of the 'Souls (series)' page, but choosing to include them raises the value of the article tremendously.

Does this seem like an acceptable solution? ~ Webspidrman (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you share your source on new election being called in Sint Marteen. I searxhed but there seem to be a strong language wall. Cordially. Aréat (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added the source to the aftermath section. Was too asleep to add it earlier. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 11:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Aréat (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for editing a redirect on Star Trek (film). Would you be able to help fix all the broken links as a result? Over 500 pages link to Star Trek (film) - many meaning the 2009 version and not the franchise. 2A0A:EF40:277:FF01:B090:1457:CF1B:6603 (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing a redirect on Nemo (singer). Would you be able to help fix all the broken links as a result? Over 250 pages link to the original page 2A0A:EF40:277:FF01:B090:1457:CF1B:6603 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What premise were you referring to? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That it was treated as a respelling of the word "Dance". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me to where that was shown to be false? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

162 outright gave sources that show it was pronounced as an initialism, and removed the tidbit that said it was respelled "dance" one it was pointed out as unverifiable.

Anyhow I do not there is consensus to move anyhow. I can rephrase the closing statement to be more neutral or rephrase as "no consensus" but I will not overturn to move. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 17:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the statement to say that the premise was unverified, not false. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 17:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misread something. The second source referenced by 162 contains this:

"ILANA KAPLAN: Why is your band name DNCE?"

"JOE JONAS: There are two reasons. Reason number one, in the process of making this EP, we wrote a song called “DNCE,” which was about being too drunk to spell dance. The second reason can be answered by JinJoo."

"JINJOO: DNCE is “dance without the a.” It’s not a perfect word, and you don’t always have to be a perfect dancer to dance. Life is just sometimes not perfect."

162's third link is to a video that opens with a very similar explanation that the band's name is a misspelling of the word "Dance" (very similar to the JinJoo quote above). 162's remark was about pronunciation, not whether it's a respelling of the word "Dance". It is clearly a respelling of "Dance". That was clearly verified, not proven false. It is not an initialism. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, let's take the case of Sun Microsystems. The "Sun" was originally an acronym, but is it treated as one? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed the wording to no consensus. If you are still not satisfied I can reopen and relist but I will not overturn to moved since I do not believe consensus to move had yet stabilized. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing your remarks, not the outcome. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since again amended the remarks in the same edit that reworded it to no consensus. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest iteration of remarks is still rather mixed up. It refers to "no consensus about the main premise of the supporters that the band's name is to be treated as a respelling of "Dance" or an initialism". The band's name is very clearly a misspelling of the word "Dance" – the band itself has explained that, so why shouldn't the band's name be treated as what it very clearly is? As for whether it's an initialism, it's clearly not an initialism. An initialism is a string of letters formed by extracting letters from a multi-word phrase. That's not what this is, so it's not an initialism. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to compare to the Sun Microsystems case, where a verified acronym isn't capitalized like one. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This retconning [4] seems improper. A strikethrough of the original close, followed by an explanation and the new wording, would be the better way. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]