User talk:Dicklyon

Please add new talk topics in new sections, at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes will expand into your signature).

I will reply here, and expect you to be watching my user talk page, even if you are Nyttend.

Random style tip

Another styletip ...

Italics for emphasis

Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences; boldface is normally not used for this purpose. Generally, the more highlighting, the less effective it is.

Barnstars and such

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your work in standardising article titles in line with the now consistent MOS:JR guidance, I present you this accolade. Your continued work in this regard, and in others, has been appreciated. It may have taken years, but much was accomplished. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For an eternity of super-gnoming at WP:Requested moves to rein in entire swathes of article-titling chaos and bring them into order. I'm sure it can seem thankless work at times, so thanks! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is said by many that A picture is worth a thousand words. Wikipedia articles are vastly improved and enhanced by the use of images. Dicklyon's user page displays just some of the over 500 images he has added to Wikipedia articles making the articles more enjoyable and interesting for our most important commodity, our reader. WP:Photography. He is a long-time veteran editor with over 137000 edits (58% in mainspace) who always uses the edit summary to clarify his edits and communicate his intentions to following editors. He also participates in various timely and important WP:Manual of Style discussions to improve what and how we do things around here. A trusted, productive and helpful editor that deserves recognition as an Editor of the Week.

The Original Barnstar

I've started to note the many scholarly contributions of this author, beginning with editing of the Wikipedia Cintel pages. For images and vision, I've had a lifelong career in color grading for feature films, tv commercials, videos, etc. with telecine and other systems worldwide; as a musician, 'Human and Machine Hearing' will certainly be fascinating. Thank you to Richard F. Lyon for providing the PDF of this work to all.

Lingelbach (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Fighting the Good Fight Barnstar
		For resisting those who would like Wikipedia’s capitalization rules to resemble a corporate brochure or a government press release —Wallnot (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is for your really thorough clean up after the Armenian genocide move discussion. My watchlist is full of your edits since days. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you! Biggerj1 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's for these hacks:

	The Minor barnstar
	SO MANY MINOR EDITS! Thank you for your work. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There we go again, commenting on the quantity of my edits instead of the quality. But minor thanks anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New topics

Add new topics at the bottom please.

Template problem?

@SounderBruce: Thanks for your revert here. I'm not sure how it happened that I was getting warnings about unknown template parameters while editing that page, but I went ahead and removed them. Perhaps the template was transiently broken? Anyway, sorry; I'd do a "thanks" there, but apparently I can't while blocked. Your revert also including undoing my lowercasing at this edit. Did you disagree with those, or was that just collateral damage that I should fix again? Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a template breakage issue, I may be able to fix it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; the "no such parameter" messages came up on two consecutive edits. I didn't so anything about it the first time, then wen't back to "fix" it. I just tried editing the case-fixed version again, and still get the warning when I preview it. Same on the version before my edit. And same on the current version, now that I check. So, yes, something is still broken; not a transient. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: let us know if this is something you can figure out. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The problem was that quite a number of aliases had been added for various parameters, but no one added them to the error-checking code at the bottom of the template. As for the claim here that "the rounds are proper names and referred to as such by media", that's very dubious. Looking through news material, the capitalization (even of "MLS Cup playoffs" sometimes) is mixed, outside of headlines which tend to be title-case and/or to use capitalization for emphasis/attention. I regularly edit in other sports articles, and it is completely abnormal for WP to be capitalizing "semifinals", "finals", and other round terms. They are descriptive labels of segements of an event, not events in their own right. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. The other part of the discussion ended up at Talk:2020 MLS Cup Playoffs after SounderBruce ignored here and reverted me at his talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look, then a long look through actual sources, and as usual it's another case trying to mimic the style of primary "official" sources and ignoring the overwhelming lowercase found in independent RS. Why am I not surprised. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So in general, when I see such warnings, I shouldn't just remove the unrecognized parameters, but rather check what they do, or call you for help? Sheesh, what good is a warning that's so broken? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching out

Hey Dicklyon,

I wanted to reach out because, re-reading some discussions and understanding how the ongoing disagreement regarding NFL Draft capitalization has been going, I want to make clear that I bare no ill will towards you and I hope that feeling is mutual. I respect and appreciate what you do and I don't want you to see me as an adversary.

Based on my comments about your block, I was concerned how you might think I feel about you. I do believe you deserved a short term block for edit warring (which came from the wrong person), but I don't want it to go beyond that. I don't believe you should need to be warned not to edit war prior prior to being blocked for edit warring because I think you should know better at this point. I'm simply not aware of any other editor who has been blocked more times for edit warring, as we typically see people blocked before they can rack up an 11th block for it.

With all that said, I like you and appreciate the knowledge you have. I'm not always going to be butting heads with you and I am with you a variety of issues. I'm sorry if at any point you've felt attacked or concerned that I may be targeting you or being unfair in any capacity, it's certainly never been my intention and I'm sorry I've come across as more of an asshole than I've meant to. It's been weighing on me a bit about how our interactions may have been interpreted, so I wanted to clear the air a bit. Hope you're well and stay well Dicklyon. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, accepted. We're all human and need to be reminded of that sometimes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Versailles

Versailles Palace or Versailles palace? —Alalch E. 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call. It's majority but not consistently capped in sources. Expect pushback if you lowercase it even though guidelines say we should. Same with "palace of Versailles". Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep thinking about it. —Alalch E. 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Palace of Verailles" is fairly strongly but not overwhelmingly majority capitalized [1], between a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio. The ratio is much closer with regard to "Versailles Palace" [2], a comparatively disused term. I don't think I would want to try downcasing at least the former of these; the feeling is generally going to be that like Gardens of Versailles it is a proper name, since Versailles itself is properly the commune in which the palace is located and after which it is named (Versailles, Yvelines). "Versailles palace", however, seems to be more of a loose descriptive designator. By inverse comparison, Edinburgh Castle is pretty uniformly treated as a capitalized proper name, while "the castle of Edinburgh" is a diused descriptor. People are apt to make a strong WP:CONSISTENT argument, that if most such castle/palace/manse/fort/etc. names are capitalized (that is, the main one used for each is capitalized) that this one should be too. We probably shouldn't be using "Versailles Palace" or "Versailles palace" since they are not the WP:COMMONNAME. PS: Château de Versailles is overwhelmingly capitalized in English-language sources [3], but the opposite is true in French [4], because of the language's different capitalization conventions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stomped your edit: So sorry!

I am so sorry! I stomped on your re-edit of dynamic tonality. I had stepped-over myself several times in the past day (from going back to old copies via an article's "read" link to recover a URL that I hadn't correctly copied, or thinking better of an edit after several perfectly necessary edits, etc.) and I thought I'd done it again. Could you please re-check the article? I have to make an appointment this evening, and it's a long job figuring out what you did: I have changed text throughout the whole article since your update. Again, sorry for the abrupt and rude edit ruination.

And by the way, I agree with you: Some of my formatting changes might be supercilious; I was aiming at making technical musical notation (for example, C^{sus 4}) more legible / more familiar to casual readers by using music-book-style typesetting, but some of it could be over / under done. I don't have especially wide experience reading well-formatted musical text: Most of the music-books I read are on folk-music / harp music, set in flat, plain-ASCII type, or sheet music, but on-page notation isn't always the same as what shows up in text. (And all of this started just because a writer used the forbidden slanty-bar fractions. Then I got carried away by the trashy refs., and the rest is there on the page.)

Regards from the soggy and recently thawed-out part of Oregon Tom L. 166.199.8.39 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left diffs on your talk page that I think show clearly what I did and what you intended. No rush, but I'll leave to you. Near Portland, are you? Sure has been nice near San Francisco. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:166.199.8.39 for more. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol rotunda

I've put the United States Capitol rotunda at uncontroversial moves at WP:RM for uppercasing, due to ngrams and the Architect of the Capitol. Just a heads up if you or pagewatchers find this controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be going to a full discussion. Not universal in ngrams but has a pretty good lead in all the forms I checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been a single comment, I might have let it slide, but instead of apologizing or even just dropping the matter, you doubled down. There is no world in which your first comment could be understood as constructive criticism. That is a mean thing to say to a colleague working in good faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was intended as constructive. He has a hard time looking at his behavior and seeing why it is so disruptive and annoying. If I can't tell him on his talk page, well, I guess I have to just suck it up. Later... Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell him on his talk page without being rude, then yes, you have to suck it up. Admins give difficult users constructive feedback daily. We manage to do so without being bloody rude. If you tried, I think you could, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been so friggin' polite and patient with him recently, and he still keeps up shit like you see at Talk:NBA Conference Finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. "Thorn in my side" is not an overly pointed description of how his behavior affects me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friction between editors is common, obviously. But if you need to vent, you need to not do that here. If you want to ask someone to change their behavior, you need to do so reasonably. And if someone is genuinely being disruptive, you know where to take the matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Unfortunately his style of disruption is not something that's easy to lodge a complaint about. There's no rule against starting an RM for a move you don't care about, or refusing to give a reason for opinions you express, nor even about doing a revert when you don't have an opinion on whether the change is appropriate or not. So when I saw that he expresses that he's a WikiGnome, while admitting that he has limited command of English grammar, and while displaying no respect for WP style guidelines, I reacted. OK, it was mildly uncivil, so now I'm blocked for it. I can accept that. Makes more sense than the recent edit warring block anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked him more nicely here, but I guess I didn't really wait and see if that resulted in any behavior change. But afterward he still won't give a reason; no responsive answer before, or so far after, this query, because he seldom has a sensible reason for what he does. He'll claim "consistency", but with what? Not with guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is meant to claim that my incivility to my fellow editor GoodDay was acceptable – just to show that it may be understandable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that my complaint was not the first or only one on his talk page about his recent behavior. This one in particular expresses (politely) outrage at his recent disruptions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find there's a good many people in the admin corps who do not take kindly to long-term civil battleground behavior. It doesn't in any way help enforcement against that behavior, though, when it is met with insults. For the record, I am not endorsing any claims about GoodDay's behavior, I am making a general point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Western Refining

A drafty idea...

Separate the meeting from the player recruitment process that the articles are mostly about:

Instead of "The National Football League Draft, also called the NFL Draft or (officially) the Player Selection Meeting, is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment."

Try a lead like "The National Football League (NFL) draft is the process that serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment. The draft is conducted at the NFL's Player Selection Meeting, an annual event." Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Something like this might also work for MLB, where the actual name of the thing (or some formal process within the thing) is not "the draft" as a whole. Some lead revision already happened there, but it might be more clarifiable still. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians' infoboxes

Howdy. I've reverted your lower-casing at Richard Nixon's infobox. Please take note, that on politician bios, their political offices are capitalized in the infoboxes, even when numbered. Just to name a few - see all the bios of presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers, deputy prime ministers, etc etc. I'm asking you to leave the infoboxes alone, on this matter. In the past an RFC was held on this concerning Joe Biden's page & the result was 'no consensus' for lower-casing. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the closed RFC-in-question. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Note that I request before mass Draft moves you wait for everything to get finalized, as it could get ugly with edit wars, blocks, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason that any of this should devolve into edit wars, even if the closure is challenged. It'll all get sorted out in time, there's no rush to implement immediately or to reverse said implementation. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else needs "to get finalized"? The RfC was closed. —Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do let me know if there's anything ongoing that I need to be aware of. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going based on the fact that someone said here an admin has already said they would reverse any such action – though doesn't seem like that's happening. I asked a question at WT:NFL on if anyone plans on bringing the closure for review – if the answer is "no" (which its looking like), then carry on. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: That was based on my reply on the main NFL Draft talk page from what I understand. That reply was based on an initial assumption that it was an informal discussion at the wrong venue that wasn't going to carry any weight. Based on Wordsmith making a point to mention that the validity of the venue was evaluated in their close, and that there was an admin closer instead of it being open ended or NAC, I don't have a valid reason to revert and it would be disruptive of me to do so. The next step, if someone is interested, would be to challenge the close, which I'm not going to do. I do regret that statement for what it's worth because I think it's one of several things that discouraged a more full discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting questions all around. What is the final venue for overturning a title conflict, is it Move Review, an RfC at Village pump, ANI, or the ARBCom "Supreme Court". I would like to challenge an RM close (United States Capitol rotunda) but with the NFL Draft RfC the order of where to go for a challenge, and what steps to take, has been thrown asunder. And Dicklyon, I hope you have a great trip with positive and exciting new adventures and learning curves. Bon Voyage good sir. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First week in Sydney has been great. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves for Draft -> draft articles

I think, at this point in time, it's safe to presume that renaming pages from "Draft" to "draft" would be moves that someone could reasonably disagree with. As such, moving forward and based on WP:PCM, would you please start RM discussions prior to moving pages from "Draft" to "draft"? For clarity, I'm not asking for this type of discussion to be started when the main article for the draft is already downcased, those moves would be an obvious exception taking place for consistency. I'm also not asking to rehash the RfC that took place, or make any negative presumptions of you, but I saw this comment at Amakuru's talk page. Every league should be evaluated individually to make sure an appropriate outcome is reached and I wanted to help quell some concerns that others have by making this formal request of you. I think it's a path forward that makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Dicklyon, you went ahead with it anyways. I even told you, with a ping, that these were not uncontroversial. I understand you may have reviewed sources, but multiple people asked you not to move this page without an RM. It was obvious there was potential for this move to be contested and, per WP:PCM, you're expected to start an RM instead of moving the page again. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hear anyone say they thought uppercase would be correct, so I'm surprised it was reverted. I'll start that RM now. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're going to start the RM now. Seriously though? You cannot act surprised when I told you this wasn't an uncontroversial move.

Will you consider my earlier request about moving draft articles? In my experience it's been controversial every time and I think it's a reasonable expectation that there's going to be opposition to said moves any time you try to make them. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of case fixing moves that I make never get a reaction or challenge of any kind. The USFL draft would have been in that category except for the RFC being open before, and should be still/again uncontroversial, since there's no conceivable rationale for capitalizing draft in those. Did anyone mention that they thought it should be capitalized? Or they just want to slow down progress toward consisency with guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the rationale where Amakuru first reverted this case-fix move: Amakuru moved page USFL draft to USFL Draft: Requested by BeanieFan11 at WP:RM/TR: A user has been systematically moving articles titled "Draft" to "draft" to support his viewpoint at an RFC on that issue. The status quo should be returned while the RFC is currently being discussed. The same also applies with 1983 USFL draft, 1984 USFL draft, 1985 USFL draft, 1986 USFL draft, 1983 USFL territorial draft, [[1984 USFL terr...) (with my bold for emphasis). Of course, this had nothing to do with supporting my viewpoint in the first place, but with that issue over, it's time to get on with it. I am not edit warring against anyone who thinks caps are better, as nobody has expressed such an opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get on with what? That RfC has no bearing on whether other drafts should be capitalized. That edit summary shows one user contesting the move (BeanieFan11). GoodDay also said they had requested the move be reverted based on a reply on Amakuru's talk page. I also asked for an RM to be held and for the page not be moved. That's 3 people who opposed the move. It's not up to you to predict and evaluate what other's rationale might end up being. I don't understand why you're so opposed to RMs when there's clearly going to be push back. There's being bold and there's just ignoring WP:PCM. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to RMs when discussion is needed, but they do sure slow down progress when they're done unnecessarily; you often see newbies opening RMs and editors responding "should have just moved it" or "should have used RMTR"; that's essentially where this one is, since nobody has expressed the opinion that these should be uppercase (and they'be been give plenty of chance to say so, here and elsewhere). And I agree that RFC has no bearing here, yet the objection to my move before was about the RFC and it was suggested to hold off while that was on, possibly because BeanieFan11 thought that if that RFC closed in favor of letting sports editors define that own capitalization style then the fixing I was doing would be unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that RM is WP:NOTAVOTE and closers should be considering the weight of the arguments. If they don't you can start your own close review and that'll then be evaluated.

Stop creating a strawman of all sports editors seeking a specific outcome and being some type of cabal, it does nothing to help your cause. Bagumba is a prolific sports editor and was in favour of downcasing and was very active in the discussion. There's a number of other examples as well, but they were the one who participated the most aside from you and SMC. I was obviously opposed to it but I've accepted the close and I'm working to implement it, with the only thing standing in my way being the possible challenge of the close, which I don't expect to be overturned. After that my AWB will be begrudgingly humming.

No, I certainly don't think it's all sports editors. It's a handful. When I said "...BeanieFan11 thought that if that RFC closed in favor of letting sports editors..." I really meant those few. Most sports editors don't give a fig about capitalization, but within every topic area there tend to be a few who like to capitalize the important stuff in that area. Here, the RFC was about sports drafts, NFL in particular, but BeanieFan11 clearly thought the implications were of wider scope. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But back to the point, did you interpret the comments by myself, GoodDay, and BeanieFan11 as opposition to the move? I don't want your evaluation of the motives or the rationale for opposing, I want to know, clearly, whether you considered that to be opposition to the move. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I interpreted them as opposition to the process, not something that would translate to an "oppose" in an RM. But since we're being picky, I admit than in my move edit summary where I said "no conceivable reason for anyone to object" I should have said "no conceivable reason for anyone to prefer uppercase". Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's progress at least. I see no reason not to let the process play out based on the opposition to the move. You are assuming they don't have a valid reason and trying to predict what someone else may argue. Neither one of us can make those type of predictions and it's unfair and unreasonable to determine consensus on your own in this situation.

I ask again, will you please consider my initial request, or at least outright reject it? I strongly believe that it's reasonable and prudent to assume that moving a page from "Draft" to "draft" will generate pushback, unless it's to match the main event's article. Thus, based on a predictable opposition to these types of moves, it makes sense to start a discussion instead of "being bold". Hey man im josh (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's case by case. Your prediction came true because you made it come true. I had mentioned at Amakuru's talk, "If someone objects and makes it into a controversy for some reason" and yes, you did make it into a controversy, for whatever reason. But why? Nobody has objected to the substance of the change, have they? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could go ahead and start the RM, and we'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive page moves, as you did at USFL Draft. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had this ready to go, but now I can't launch it: {{subst:requested move | current1 = USFL Draft | new1 = USFL draft | current2 = 1983 USFL Draft | new2 = 1983 USFL draft | current3 = 1983 USFL Territorial Draft | new3 = 1983 USFL territorial draft | current4 = 1984 USFL Draft | new4 = 1984 USFL draft | current5 = 1985 USFL Draft | new5 = 1985 USFL draft | current6 = 1985 USFL Territorial Draft | new6 = 1985 USFL territorial draft | current7 = 1986 USFL Draft | new7 = 1986 USFL draft | current8 = 1986 USFL Territorial Draft | new8 = 1986 USFL territorial draft | reason = Lowercase dominates in sources. }}

@The Wordsmith: I was told to leave the status quo while the RFC was going on (see my remarks in section immediately above). That's over (thank you very much for the in-depth response there). People said it might not be uncontroversial to re-do those, but nobody expressed an opinion that uppercase would be correct. The best way to ask was to start, in plain sight, and see if there was an objection. And there was, again not based on preferring the capitalized title, but for some other reason, apparently just suspecting that it might not be considered uncontroversial. So I immediately switched to launching the RM discussion. I don't see how any of this can be considered disruptive, or move warring. If you'd like to leave me blocked anyway, do me the favor of launching that RM that I've prepared (put your more neutral rationale of course) and we'll see if anyone argues for caps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were told both above and on User talk:Amakuru (who reverted your last move of this page per an WP:RM/TR that the moves were not uncontroversial and that it would need an RM. Instead you went ahead and unilaterally moved it anyway, with your edit summary including no conceivable reason for anyone to object after people already had objected. That's blatant move warring. I have no objections to anyone copying over your RM proposal, but I would have assumed you'd rather wait for the block to lift so you can participate in it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect I can get my word in before it closes. I don't expect it to really need me, since nobody has a case for capitalization. You say people had already objected, but that was about process, wanting to wait for the RFC to finish, not the substance, the case issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I was told by several that this move would not be uncontroversial. My point is that that's just false, since nobody has suggested that the capped Draft would be appropriate here. Controversial would be if I tried to move NHL Entry Draft. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]