User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2017/October

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PPEMES. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Routine requested moves like that, which are just for conformity with a category's naming scheme, can be "speedied" by listing them at WP:RM/TR. I've done it for you for that one, and it should be at Orders, decorations, and medals of the Netherlands within the day.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing this out! And thanks for committing the "speedy" in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Users helping the Internet not suck, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)? I'm assuming its on updating it to part of the MOS/naming conventions, etc? I don't see anywhere to comment though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It was meant for a general purpose. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how we can have an RfC with a formal close without a question or topic being asked. To me, it would seem best to have one on whether or not your proposed guideline should be adapted. Holding an RfC on the other disputed matters doesn't make sense to me at this time because there is no guideline for them to be incorporated into. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Could you help me improve the situation accordingly, please? I'm not skilled with this. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, will do it in a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Done see: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention. I also just removed the background sections. They read a bit like original research and I don't think will be helpful in getting a naming conventions guideline accepted. I think you'd be better to use them to argue your views at the RfC. Right now I'm neutral on it. I'll probably weigh in with thoughts after seeing what others have to say. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I guess that makes sense. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I removed the note you placed about the RfC being started at my initiative. Per the conversation above, I only started it procedurally after you started an RfC without asking a question or creating a proposal. I was only trying to help you launch an RfC on a guideline you put a lot of work into because that is what it looked like you were trying to do and you asked for help above when I questioned you about it.
  I'm sorry that we appear to have misunderstood each other on this. I could have been clearer in my question, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding your intent. If you do want to work with others to adjust the guideline and start a new RfC I'd suggest talking to SMcCandlish about how naming conventions are normally formatted on en.wiki. He's a regular to these types of conversations and can give you good advice from a non-subject specific point of view. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I already had some comments on that, under the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Chicbyaccident, thanks for creating Christopherus Stephani Bellinus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as needing improved sourcing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Name of the Catholic Church is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of the Catholic Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear @SMcCandlish: Thank you for your kind help in past efforts. Now I have another issue to contact you about. I have attempted to make a user account name change, which was dismissed because of an unfortunate block on Swedish Wikipedia, remaing despite application of reconsidering. Given this precondition, is there no way to apply for a global or even English Wikipedia user account name change? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Outside my areas of wikiexpertise. I think the most expedient course of action would be getting the Swedish block undone. Maybe even state the request is to do a global name change and you don't mind some other restriction being put in place such as a topic ban or whatever se.wikipedia might accept. It might be possible to have the global account processes at Meta change the username anyway, but I really don't know anything about that. I think the pages you need are Meta:Help:Unified_login and Meta:Steward requests/Username changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I guess my Swedish user account has suffered a bit of a character assassination by a couple of determinated administrators there. I might be able to file a new application next year but I'm afraid such a flexiblity that your propose would be hoping for too much. I checked your links but didn't really find any solution to the issue. Do you know any other pages where I may search for more related information, please, or some other user I may ask? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not right off hand. I would suggest asking at the talk pages of those two Meta pages, since the regulars there are the people who work on global renames.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chicbyaccident, please do not add genealogical data or other information without reliable sources to this article. Improvements are of course always welcome, but such historical details should be based on verifiable references. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Diocese of Jerusalem. Since you had some involvement with the Diocese of Jerusalem redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DBD 08:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)