User talk:Spekkios

Hi Spekkios! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three times now you have edit conflicted me on this page. Each time with something more succinct, convincing and on topic. But my comments have been more amusing and witty, to me anyway. You have probably saved me a great deal of regret. No reason for calling. But because of you I can sleep well tonight, knowing I have not inadvertently offended anyone. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Hope you sleep well!

Hi, just to make you aware, I've received this message Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your relisting at

Hey

Spekkios (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's my pleasure! Paine  12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on whether it would be appropriate to take one or all of those to MR? I've been considering taking Lodz on its own, but I wanted to get your opinion before doing anything. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Spekkios (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is hard to imagine why confederate symbolism wouldn't be notable enough for the

talk) 00:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

What you are claiming is not reality. I just looked at all three of those links and they worked for me. Also the "youtube video" is from the

talk) 00:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This conversation is going nowhere because you are putting your own personal understandings over reliable, secondary sources. This is blatant willful ignorance. Those articles are not op-eds and you are being dishonest by saying otherwise. The state attorney general said it is based on the confederate flag. If those aren't reliable sources, nothing is. Please explain how the state attorney general,

talk) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

You yourself deleted the primary source which is the written account of the state attorney general.

talk) 00:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The attorney general's opinion is already in the article. Have you read this article or read the edit summary? If you had, then you wouldn't be adding the same source again. Nemov (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So basically, I provided a primary source but you really don't like it so it doesn't count. The secondary sources I have provided are reliable and I gave you what you asked. The state attorney general said it was based on the confederate flag and so do many secondary sources. There's nothing I can give you that would convince you because your definition of reliable source is not Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Four different reliable sources at this point say the same thing and you are single-handedly throwing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources to the wind because you don't agree with the conclusion. These secondary sources are reliable and consensus backs that up. They are not opinion pieces, despite what you keep repeating. Textbook

talk) 01:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Desertambition

: No, that isn't what is happening at all. The information you are placing in the lead does not need to be there are the discussion on the symbolism is taking place in the "current flag" section. The information you are trying to add to the lead is:

• Based upon a 1987 opinion by the attorney-general, which is not sufficient to place in the lead, and which as Nemov points out is already in the article anyway.
• Referencing a HP Youtube video which doesn't provide a source for their information. HP as you point out is a secondary source, but it still needs to actually reference something like all other secondary sources do, because otherwise how do we know they didn't just make it up.
• Referencing a WP article which references the same 1987 attorney-general opinion, and another article which doesn't mention the current state flag at all.
• Referencing a Denver Post page which references another page which mentions an old study conducted by an archivist.

That really isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia to state that Alabama is one of only a few states that incorporate confederate symbolism in their state flag , and especially not in the lead. The possible confederate symbolism, including the opinion of the attorney-general, is discussed further down the page.

On a slightly different note, I will warn you one last time to not throw accusations of stonewalling or hounding towards me, or any other accusations like being a historical revisionist. If you have any issues with my conduct, take it to

Spekkios (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

I don't think interacting with Desertambition is productive. It's clear the user doesn't listen. I'd recommend just ignoring the user. They're going to object to anything we say. No objective person could read that TALK page and come to any other conclusion other than the Desertambition is unreasonable. Thanks so much for your help researching the topic. It's been enlightening. Nemov (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm going to move on I think. I think it's fairly clear that the flag has confederate connections but unlike Georgia or Mississippi there isn't anything concrete, and despite me repeating that Desertambition still thinks that I'm trying to present information that ties the flag to something else. Thank you for your help too! --

Spekkios (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There's not enough to add to the lead, but that entire history section could use some work incorporating the new citations and making the links clearer, but editing it right now is impossible. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I absolutely agree. The section could use a bit of a rewrite. --

Spekkios (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The best place to discuss changes to the article is on the article's talk page. Not a user talk page.

talk) 01:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk pages can be used for any interpersonal discussion, such as this. --

Spekkios (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Make as many unfounded personal attacks on me as you would like but discussion about the

talk) 01:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There aren't any unfounded attacks against you here, and again: my talk page can be used for any interpersonal discussion. Please see

Spekkios (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry - I didn't realise that had occurred so I've reopened it. The previous closer should have relisted the RM so I've done that now. --

Spekkios (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, no worries. I'm not going to reopen that one sorry. There's been 6 replies with 4/6 of those supporting. --

Spekkios (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the response, I understand your position. If I decide to make a move review I will make sure to send you a link. Just thought I should let you know that I am considering that so you don't feel blindsided. Appreciate the discussion and thanks again for the responses.

talk) 19:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That's fine, no worries. You're entitled to a move review if you wish. --

Spekkios (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has asked for a

Avilich, I'm sympathetic to your point of view in this RM, but I don't really see any policy- or guidelines-based reasons to give the opposers' arguments any less weight than the supporters'. I find it difficult to image than anybody could have closed this as anything other than "no consensus". Given that the issue isn't confined to the two articles in the RM, if you want to take this further, the best thing to do would be to start with a more general, informal, discussion on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. My impression is that RMs revolving around questions of natural disambiguation vs. common names tend be hit-and-miss; if you're interested in some background reading, then you can have a look at the comments in this recent discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines straightforwardly say that titles should be consistent, concise and follow common usage, and none of the opposers gave any arguments showing that the NDAB does not violate these three principles in view of the counterarguments presented. Exceptions to guidelines can exist, but none of the opposers argued for one in this discussion, and their opinions were based on nothing more than whim.

Avilich (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi - I don't agree with your assessment of the opposition to the move as being based on "nothing but a whim"; editors opposing the move primarily cited

Spekkios (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The oppose argument is weaker because NDAB requires that the title be "commonly called in English reliable sources", but the oppose side found no evidence that the NDAB title was so. Those who bothered to do a search concluded the opposite and supported the move.

Avilich (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As I explained, there were enough editors citing natural disambiguation that weren't swayed by that argument. Thus, I determined there was no consensus on the prevailing policy or gudelines, or the proper name for the article to use. I'm not going to reconsider the closure further; you are entitled to a move review if you wish. --

Spekkios (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! --

Spekkios (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

About your no consensus closure of the RM at Talk:Fixed point (mathematics), I fail to see why you would close an RM while acknowledging that further discussion of the title is needed. Moreover, I don't see anyone in the discussion saying that the article should keep its current (ambiguous) title. If further discussion is needed to determine a better title choice, I think the RM discussion should simply continue, and I ask you to revert your closure. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this particular RM has been relisted once, and per

Spekkios (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

While I agree with your general assessment, I note that on Wikipedia

WP:RMCI that says a discussion should be closed simply because it has not yet converged after some period of time, especially in a case like this one where there appears to be a consensus that the current title is undesirable. Since you don't seem willing to reopen it, I may submit a new RM. I don't think a move review is desirable, since I don't think you misread the situation and since it may be better to focus on a new proposed alternative. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Submitting a new RM on an alternative is a good idea. --

Spekkios (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. I have done that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this:

@

Spekkios (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll refer to this next time. Thank you for your work. Blocsrich (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If you haven't seen it already, the page was moved. --

Spekkios (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Because of the lack of comments I didn't think it was unreasonable to relist the RM. --

Spekkios (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. In July, you removed "Türkiye". And now suddenly "Republic of Türkiye" as well. What changed? It remained like this, and suddenly starting to edit. I would suggest to engage on talk page. Beshogur (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this RfC. Thanks. --

Spekkios (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Kia ora Spekkios - recently I've noticed you engage in several move requests immediately or soon after I did. Could you please explain the timing of these, as it's starting to feel personal based on my involvement, or at the very least as though you're following my history. Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. I engage in move requests relevent to my interests. --

Spekkios (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

And it just so happens that, in four of the last five move requests I've taken part in, you've come in with the opposite of whatever view I take within 12 hours of me posting - even if the move has already been up for days without your involvement? I find that hard to believe. Turnagra (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the issue is. Again, I take part in move requests relevent to my interests. --

Spekkios (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I find that argument hard to believe given the timing. I have no doubt you're interested in the move requests given your clear interest in removing indigenous names wherever possible, but the timing is still too much of a coincidence for me to overlook, leading me to have concerns around

WP:HOUNDING. Turnagra (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly, I have never supported removing indigenous names from Wikipedia. I support the implementation of Wikipedia standards in relation to article names. Secondly, if you find my support for such standards irritates, annoys, or causes you distress, then I am sorry that you feel that way. That isn't any concern of mine, however. --

Spekkios (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a reply to the edit summary on your most recent edit to Talk:East Timor {should be called “Talk:Timor-Leste”}.

Why can’t I apply !votes to other people’s comments or delete other people’s comments? That makes literally no sense, and you haven’t provided the article of the

Please see

Spekkios (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your involvement in the article, however your recent closure of 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquakes name discussion should be market as no consensus as none was reached. Please change it.

Regards.

The consensus was quite strong in favour of not moving the article, in particular due to the time between the previous move request and this one. Hence, I closed it as "not moved", instead of "no consensus", as there was a consensus to not move the article. --

Spekkios (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There was no

Gazozlu (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There was a consensus to not move the article, however. As I stated above and in the closing statement, the primary reason for not moving the article was due to the reopening of the same RM only a week after the older one was closed. --

Spekkios (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]