User talk:Kilo-Lima: Difference between revisions

I (and presumably some of the other participants in the discussion) would appreciate it if you could add a closing rationale to your decision at Talk:Vladimír Búřil#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Regards, KiloT 18:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you came about the conclusion that there was "no clear cut consensus on the move" here. [1] There was indeed a consensus that "AhwazI" is not an appropriate term for the title as far Wikipedia policy on common names goes. Many of the "oppose" votes were canvassed on another article's talk page, and overall the oppose votes were in the minority by the margin of 1 to 2. The oppose arguments were also rather weak (see [2]) and did not address the main point that "AhwazI" contradicts our main Wikipedia page titles which are Ahvaz, and Iranian Arabs, so the loaded term "Ahwazi" is clearly against our policy on naming. Even Greyshark09 who is the creator of the page, and had been canvassing votes against the move, had actually conceded that "2005 Ahvaz unrest" was the more policy-appropriate term than "2005 Ahwazi unrest". [3] In light of all this, could you please reconsider your closing decision or at least realist the RM for further discussion and wider community input? Kurdo777 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin has also said: "Users are welcome to merge with Khūzestān Province." , but I think the best article to merge is Politics of Khūzestān Province. In fact ( contact ) 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed the move with this because the majority of people were saying to merge, and not to move. So if merging, the page could just be turned into a redirect. Also, contrary to your interpretation, I felt that the opposing comments had enough weight to merit a no-move. Regards, KiloT 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kilo-Lima. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, could you explain the way of thinking which led you to conclude that the result of the vote was "move"? I'm asking because only Wladthemlat was wholeheartedly supporting it (and a Slovak nationalist called Bizovne along with a few others), most of the remaining voters didn't insist on "tragedy" as maniacally as Wladthemlat did. You've mentioned the definition of the term massacre, which involves killing unresisting human beings. However the villagers DID resist the gendarmes and the priest when he wanted to consecrate the temple. And besides, there's no consensus among contemporary sources as far as the term usage's concerned. That's why I've proposed some alternative terms, but Wladthemlat didn't seem to like any of them. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well I think that different dictionaries are going to have different definitions depending on what one you use. The Free Dictionary says The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly, i.e. without mention of the persons resisting and Dictionary.com says the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals. Regardless of the definition, however, I felt that more sources referred to the act as massacre and not tragedy. By all means, please feel free to add a WP:RFC, or even just request a move back on WP:RM, on the article for a more broader input if you wish. Regards, KiloT 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]