User talk:Born2cycle

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Please discuss at article

If you have an interest in opera and wish to contribute to the Project please discuss on the Talk page of the article concerned. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

DS alerts

Re: this, as you are aware, for ArbCom sanctions to apply individuals must be made aware of them. You have never been made aware of BLP sanctions, so I alerted you to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your lack of civility makes working with you highly unpleasant, unhelpful, and unproductive. . —В²C ☎ 04:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Born2cycle. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: talk page

I'm not replying at this time because I've already made my point and as you pointed out contributed more than enough. I posted at BLPN to get more voices, and they are looking at it. I will likely look at the discussion again later this weekend after more people have had the chance to comment who are not me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. It's not urgent. Thanks for letting me know. And I apologize again for the revert of your revert. @Joseph A. Spadaro:. --В²C ☎ 23:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please reopen RM

please revert and reopen. Closure by non-admin expressing "opinion" is a super-vote. This could/should have been relisted to let other train and Poland editors take a longer look. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have relisted if it had not already been relisted once before. Despite the relisting it had garnered no support. There was no super vote. My opinion was regarding how best to proceed with respect to determining the proper title regardless of which it is. I have no horse in this race. If you really believe this was an improper close, take it to MRV. —В²C ☎ 12:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The “Closer’s opinion” does not belong in the close. Your inability to see this is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You two, and a few others, seem to be unaware of your own biases against me. If any other closer closed that RM with that comment I bet you’d not see a problem with it. I am far from the first closer to have left a suggestion on “what to do from here”, but am probably the first to be taken to task for it. Stop persecuting me because of your histories of disagreeing with me, please. Stop holding me to madeup rules that apply to no one but me, like you are doing here. —В²C ☎ 15:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed the word “opinion“ to “advice from here“. Does that help? ––В²C ☎ 16:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The problem is that your are putting your own fresh opinion in the close. The close is for summarising the discussion. There is room for opinion on the discussion and advice for moving forward, but you just blunder across that subtle line. My own bias? I am clearly on record as proposing that you be banned from closing discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And that is quintessential Confirmation bias. While I can see how someone with your confirmation bias about me might think I crossed the line, I know what was in my mind and what I intended to convey with those words, and I am confident I did not cross the line. You also repeatedly refer to this supposed obligation of the closer to "summarize the discussion", yet that is commonly not done, but I have little doubt I'm the only one who gets flack from you for not doing so. Anyone, unless someone without a history of disagreement complains about that close here, I say again: take it to WP:MRV. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your extrapolation of User:Dekimasu’s comment to recommending a deletion, along the lines that railwaylines without secondary sources should not have stand alone articles, is a controversial recommendation and is not appropriate for the close of a “no consensus” RM. It’s a perfectly fair opinion outside the closer’s box though. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're imposing an imaginary rule about what's appropriate in closers' boxes which you apply only to me. Confirmation bias, again. I did not recommend a deletion. I just noted that if an article is not supported by English RS, it should probably be removed. Basically I just reiterated what the notice at the top of the article itself already states: If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. In other words, my statement reflected the same purpose as the notice: anyone who thinks the article is notable should find the sources to prove it. It takes some pretty serious confirmation bias to find fault in a closer pointing this out in the closing statement. For the 3rd time, if you're confident that this was an improper close, take it to MRV. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive and harassing me. --В²C ☎ 20:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) while I might have closed this simply as "no consensus" (for the near-complete lack of discussion after a relist) rather than "no consensus to move" (which might imply a negative consensus) there is no question that the close reflected the discussion. There's a fine line to be drawn between offering one's opinion as justification for a conclusion versus offering one's opinion to justify a close which does not actually reflect the consensus, and it's obvious to me that B²C's closing comment is an example of the first thing, not the second. I suggest dropping this, or if you have new information that might change the outcome of the discussion, add it to your move review request and let it be considered by neutral observers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The close per se “no consensus to move” was fine, the problem is the last sentence. The failed RM should not contain a recommendation to delete in the closing statement because no one in the discussion discussed deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Again imposing the imaginary rule. For the fourth and LAST time: if you think you have a valid case take it to MRV. Any further comments from you about this here on my talk page will be treated as WP:HARASSMENT and removed. --В²C ☎ 21:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the current title Proteza koniecpolska is bad, which cries out for the page to be moved somewhere else. It's not recognizable in English. The RM should be held open until a suitable new title emerges, especially with participation this thin. There is an identically-titled article pl:Proteza koniecpolska in Polish. Using Google translate, I'd guess a good English title might be Warsaw–Wrocław high speed rail line renovation ("prosthesis" is probably trying to say "renovation"). We do have bilingual Wikipedians who might be able to help; one of them is on the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. As this has now been nominated for deletion, it would be a terrible waste of editor time to litigate this at Move Review. Move review should be saved for more controversial decisions where there has been extensive discussion and disagreement, it shouldn't be used for relatively trivial matters like this. We don't need English-language sources to demonstrate notability; foreign-language reliable sources may be translated. A high-speed rail link between two major Polish cities seems notable to me. @SmokeyJoe: @In ictu oculi: I wouldn't press the matter too much here. After he says "go to MR", I would just open a new RM right below the one he closed, proposing to move to an acceptable English-language title, or if you're unsure of the best title, just make it an open-ended (?) request. wbm1058 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree there is a problem with the current title. As noted above, since this RM was already relisted once and nevertheless garnered so little interest, I didn't think relisting again was going to help. In the mean time, I was hoping with my comment to coax someone with more interest in this article than I to dig up any relevant English RS to help not only with the title, but also with the references in the article content for the purpose of verifying notability in an English encyclopedia. I think a new RM is a good idea, but I urge anyone starting one to first find appropriate English RS to support a new title. Otherwise, like the notice on the article page notes, and my comment in the close reiterates, without basis in English RS, the article's notability is to be questioned, and may lead to deletion. --В²C ☎ 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)