User talk:robertsky

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi! Thank you for fixing the moving errors I made while trying to move the pages. If you don't mind, could you explain how exactly we move the pages like this? I thought I'd figured it out from looking at others, but I guess not. Lunar-akaunto／talk 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

page movers and administrators have (and as admins, if the target page is just history of redirections being made, we have the option to have the page outright deleted). – robertsky (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh. Understood. Lunar-akaunto／talk 07:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you closed my move request "per consensus". As you'll see from my subsquent post (Requested move 23 June 2024) I feel strongly that we are failing to apply

guidelines in this case and have provided plenty of followup reliable sources that indicate an incorrect consensus decision was reached. Wanted to reach out to you before initiating a move review. MzK11 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MzK11, your initial nominating statement focused too much on the fact that the catalogue has been reissued under the subject's new name, a point which many in the discussion contested on.

the overwhelming majority of his career to date has been under the name Sananda Maitreya..., but there were no sources in the initial statement. In your followup reply to BarrelProof, it consists of mostly interviews which are considered as primary sources. Out of the four (excluding Spotify and Apple), only [1] may possibly be used as an independent reference. Despite the response by BarrelProof to your followup, I do not see that it had changed their initial stance of leaning oppose much (the initial stance was not struck out).

And given that there was a similar request raised in 2022, and decidedly opposed based on COMMONNAME, what had changed since then? There was no denying of the new name in the discussions then and now, as far as I can tell, but neither was it raised that it should be changed based on NAMECHANGES. Therefore taking the discussion into considerations, the question to contest in the discussion you raised on June 1 is "the new name more commonly known to the public between 2022 and now?" Are their new works as prominently known as their older works?

The reissue of the catalog under the new name may not be a proof that his name name is now more commonly known, a point that was raised repeatedly in various forms, and (now having read into all of the sources used in the article fully) especially not after when it was at the insistence of the subject ([2]). (Anecdotally, streaming services republishing catalogs under another name is more common than you think, especially when there is a change coming from the publisher's end.)

Therefore per consensus, the old name is still the common name. You said that the consensus was based on a faulty premise, but from the looks of it, the initial nominating statement is at fault for starting the discussion on this path, and the followup to BarrelProof did little to steer the discussion into a closure you desire.

As for your new request to relook into this from the perspective of

WP:NAMECHANGE, it is worthy a look but as a separate discussion in my opinion. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your time and thoughtful response.

From my perspective we never had the opportunity to discuss the issue from the perspective of

WP:NAMECHANGE

at the time, the topic was derailed from the outset (presumably more experienced) Wikipedia editors who took the conversation off in different directions with their own impossible standards of evidence (e.g. trying to make me find articles that don't mention the old name at all... a completely invented standard) and then the whole conversation was shut down. Yes, a consensus was reached but the topic has not been given a fair shake yet in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines, we're not doing what is best for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, because you closed off that original RM, my subsequent RM has been ALSO shut down without any further discussion, so we've completely denied ourselves any way forward. Again, we have failed to act in the best interests of Wikipedia there. We need to be more willing to apply Wikipedia guidelines with more due dilligence, and less keen to beat each other with beauracracy. I appreciate Wikipedia has its protocol to follow etc but ultimately we're all trying to make the site better and the problem here is that we've been completely denied any path towards doing the right thing.

I am completely happy to accept that the focus on the renaming of the back catalogue has been proven to not the best way to steer the discussion, but hindsight etc. The point there was, this is an unusual situation and merits more nuanced debate, but increasingly the replies were setting their own impossible standards of evidence which are not necessarily aligned with Wikipedia's own guidelines.

The simple fact is there isn't a single reliable source from the past 20+ years which routinely refers to him by his old name. Flipping the direction of the argument is quite revealing I think - you won't find much of anything that refers to the old name except when referring to as a former name. So I think we have a case to dispute both the COMMONNAME assertion and also on grounds of NAMECHANGE. Rather than relitigate the mistakes from that first conversation, I just want the conversation to continue and focus on Wikipedia guidelines and real sources - we must find a way to improve Wikipedia and get it lining up with all reliable media sources, because it's paralysis when attempting to resolve even simple matters like this are leading to some very anachronistic articles.. How can we find a way forward?

Lastly, I don't think we can rule that all interviews are primary sources necessarily. For the more reputable newspapers, magazines, media organisations etc their interviews are subject to the same journalistic standards as any other article, it's just that some of the article may quote or paraphrase direct communication from the subject. But really in the world of music journalism, if you rule out interviews you really don't have many (any?) sources left to work with.

If you agree that the WP:NAMECHANGE path seems potentially fruitful and worth exploring further, what's the best way forward in your view, if we want to try and give ourselves a chance of making a better informed / better debated decision? Is it best to reopen the "shut by consensus" RM, or the "shut by association" subsequent RM? Happy to take advice on this. MzK11 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:MRV, let the other editors weigh in first and take it from there. – robertsky (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Tech News: 2024-26

MediaWiki message delivery 22:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please move the talk page as well? Thank you. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesatellite done – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robertsky I am Nelson, and this is a consultaton request I wish to seek from you. I recently created a new article titled 2023 Orchard Road rioting, where a man was killed during a brawl. I published it after working on it since last year (only a tiny bit actually) and also expanded on it after the first conviction just recently. It was moved to draftspace for some reason of blpcrime issue but I moved it back and also redacted the names of those who are not yet convicted, except for one of the suspects Asvain who is facing a murder charge and shahrulnizam, the friend of the victim who was similarly charged. I not sure if I need more improvement, and if the names of the two other guys Asvain and Shahrulnizam should also be removed but keep the name of the first person convicted. Hope to get some advice from you soon. Thank you and wish you a good night NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky, it was again taken to draftspace as Draft:2023 Orchard Road rioting (2). I was told there was massive BLP violation but there were no specifications about what exactly I should edit away. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BRD. – robertsky (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Robertsky, thank you for replying to my message. I wish to also ask your opinion about my article, and if there are improvements I should have by the way. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: Personally, I would wait until the court case(s) are over before writing up on someone's criminal act if it is the only thing notable about the person. In this case, person(s). It may take awhile for all the cases to be settled, but there's no deadline to writing articles on here. If I may, can I turn your attention to Singapore billion dollar money laundering case, which the related court cases have been settled recently? – robertsky (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky, I get what you mean. I also prefer this generally, unless if such a case is exceptionally notable, like the 2019 Orchard Towers murder when I created it in January 2022, two years before that last guy Tan Sen Yang was convicted of murder, or the Chin Swee Road child death of 2014, which I created in April 2023, five months before the father was sentenced for culpable homicide. I did observe the coverage of the rioting case and find it plenty to an extent but refrained from continuing to edit for publication until the first suspect was convicted for this case. I took a different approach for the unsolved cases since they may not be over but still notable. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020 yeah... But since the other persons are not convicted yet, one can also argue that such article may presume one's guilt by association. And unlike other long unresolved cases, this is one that is in process of being closed, given that there has been court proceedings, albeit with a longer duration. – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky, I also want to seek your advice too. I see that for those American shooting incidents, they created the article right after the cases happen and I did not wish to make assumptions of double standard here, but how is it that their cases were published even though no conviction have happened? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020 many a time, these cases are perpetrated by individuals whose identity and/or motivations are known by the time they are arrested or shot dead. Frankly, for most of them, going through the legal system is a matter of weighing how much a punishment one will get, not weighing on whether they are innocent even though the system presumes one's innocent. As for this riot case, there is still an opportunity for some involved to be not convicted of a crime like that of Chan of the 7 in the 2019 Orchard Towers murder. – robertsky (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky Thank you for the helpful advice and things you said. And for the record, I have checked the hearing list website from the Supreme Court and I saw that at least five of them were likely on bail because their court appearances for next few weeks ahead were mainly about bail review or something, plus pre-trial conferences for some of the others (including those who had bail review). I will see how things go first. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]