User talk:Necrothesp

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13 /Archive 14

Hello @Necrothesp, hope you are well.
Seeing your guideline about the articles of a soldier, I wanted to ask you a question. Is an article notable enough of a two star general who has the second highest award of the country? Along with that he has the Sword of Honour of the military academy he was trained. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe that all general officers should still be seen as notable, as they once were on Wikipedia. However, sadly in recent years this has been deprecated and notability of general officers has been judged on a case by case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I created an article on a two star general - Muhammad Raza Aizad. He has the Hilal-i-Imtiaz, which is the second highest award. He also commanded one of the most important divisions of Pakistan Army, 11th Infantry Division (Pakistan).
Now, there has been an AfD stating the article should get deleted. It would be great if you give your opinion in the AfD, as I believe you have handled such situations previously. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Looks like the discussion regarding post-nominals in the lead has petered-out. Though it does appear that consensus moved in the direction of your contention, by my reading. Regardless, it would appear that an RfC is being requested and is required to move the discussion forward. As the original initiator, would you be willing to start such an RfC? MWFwiki (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Necrothesp,

A little while ago, you kindly made some changes and improvements to the Leena Nair article. I can see since then further changes have been and the article has now been reviewed and fully cited following my suggestions on the Talk page. However, I’ve noticed that there is still a neutrality dispute banner in place.

As I have a conflict of interest and am not able to remove it myself, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether you feel it would now be appropriate to remove the banner. Thank you very much for considering this, and for your help with the article. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MWFwiki (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#h-RfC_Regarding_MOS:POSTNOM-20250514001000 which may be of interest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you moved the page Josephine Crawley Quinn to Jo Quinn as more common. I'm not sure the new name is more common (at any rate as an author and public figure), so have suggested reverting at WP:RM. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have on multiple occasions made comments such as The purpose of disambiguation is to assist users, not to cater to the smugness of Wikipedia insiders (e.g. here) or Disambiguation is intended to help users, not stoke the egos of a handful of Wikipedia insiders (e.g. here). I interpret these comments to mean that users such as myself who are making good-faith arguments at invoking the WP:SMALLDETAILS aspect of article title policy in RM discussions are "smug" and/or are being egotistical. These are ad hominem personal attacks and I've had quite enough of them.

More broadly, it is painfully clear you strongly disagree with WP:SMALLDETAILS in all cases. That's a perfectly valid opinion, but is in disagreement with community consensus as reflected by policy. Making comments such as these in individual RM discussions, rather than articulating why the policy shouldn't apply (or be applied differently) in each specific case, ultimately leads to a lack of consistency in article titles (where RM outcomes depend on who participates and if such simple "votes" are given undue weight by RM closers) and therefore your comments are simply disruptive. Please revisit WP:RMCOMMENT; simple comments against policy are not arguments at all. If you feel so strongly against WP:SMALLDETAILS and/or feel it no longer reflects community consensus, start a RfC to that effect and stop turning individual RM discussions into battlefields in your war against it.

An administrator and long-tenured user such as yourself should do better, and I am strongly considering starting a WP:RECALL poll. I also hope you respond to Erik's inquiry at Talk:Bypass_Road_(film)#Ruquested move 1 May 2025. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks here. I'm merely making a comment about the purpose of disambiguation. It is intended to assist all users rather than to cater to a handful of editors who are au fait with Wikipedia procedures (and I would note that many editors agree with me on RM discussions). It is not in any way aimed at any specific editors. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it as such, but if you are unhappy with it then I will phrase differently in future. I have no desire to upset anyone and that was certainly not my intention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6: I'd like to tag along with that sense. I've run into Necrothesp at several INCDAB move requests, and see the same thing you mention here, there. Not one of their comments has been even remotely supported by policy, and every one, such as Partial disambiguation is never a good idea, goes against sitewide consensus. If you started a recall poll, I would most likely !vote support at this moment. Necrothesp, please actually reference policy in your RM arguments in the future, rather than railing against PAGs with consistent support. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]