You've reached the user talk page of Dpmuk. This is where you can communicate with me. If you're message is about an action of mine please could I ask that you read any relevant information on my user page first as that may answer your question and save by you and me some time. If you still wish to leave a message then please do so by clicking on the "+" or "new section" links above. Please remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ after your message. This will make it much easier for me to know who I'm talking to.

Please remember that I, and nearly everyone else at Wikipedia, is a volunteer. We're also only human. Therefore we may make mistakes or take a long time to reply. Please try not to get angry if you believe that is the case and try to assume good faith. I am aware that that is often easier said than done but it is likely to make the experience easier for all involved.

I will reply to all good faith messages that appear to need a reply. If I haven't replied to your message but I've been active on this page since you posted it then it would appear that I've either accidentally missed your message or assumed it didn't need a reply. If that's the case feel free to post me a reminder.

I will generally reply to you on your talk page. I will reply here if you specifically ask me to or I am aware that you are an editor that prefers replies on the same page the original message was posted on. If I've posted to your talk page, or an article talk page, then I will be watching that page so feel free to post there or here as you prefer. If my post was a long time ago (more than 2 months) then I may have stopped watching the page in question. If that is the case then you'll have to post here to get my attention.

I manually archive this page after every 50 conversations, generally a few days after the 50th discussion appears to have finished. If your message is no longer here please check my archives.

FYI

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises, where the apparent inconsistency in results has been noted between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (deleted by unanimous agreement) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation) (kept by a substantial consensus). Since you participated in one of these discussions, you may wish to contribute to our efforts to craft a useful compromise with respect to the proposal under discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). Join in the deletion review for your comments. --George Ho (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst doing some research this afternoon, I stumbled across some postings by an editor referring to his editing on wikipedia. In particular, they were editing to support an agenda that was contrary to consensus. I'm uncertain about how to proceed, their editing is disruptive but in a petty way and its an WP:OUT minefield. Any suggestions? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Tom Papworth, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! SheffGruff (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dpmuk. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_December#Haile_Selassie. I'm sorry that you found my comments largely unhelpful. Note that the comment on "authorism" was a self-declared-bias, not an assertion that other's should also be authorist, although they might like to consider the point of view. Authorism is certainly not policy. I may have argued some lines a bit strong. If you were to have overturned to "no consensus", I think it is clear, given the arguments rehashed though more developed at MR, that a subsequent RM would have found a consensus to move. I do wish that all closers would give clear explanations on contested discussions. Thank you for your excellent explanation of the close, and I think you made the right close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At [1] you have the phrase "head in the sound" -- thinking maybe that should be "sand"? NE Ent 03:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Changed. Doing well today! Dpmuk (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world did you close this as overturn rather than relist? The discussion is still underway and in the same move request section. Yes, an RFC has been opened, but it has no authority to approve or disapprove a move. What are we supposed to do now? Open a new move request? Also, exactly what was your analysis? Considering the amount of discussion that's been invested in this, I thought you basically just phoned it in. You certainly did not offer a compelling analysis of why you called it the way you did. I urge you to change this to relist as the only sensible choice. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your closure at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug) (closed). It doesn't look good to have move reviews dragging out so long, so it's a relief that it's over. For what it's worth I had considered closing this, also with overturn. In a case like this any close will disappoint a group of people. Someday there could be a checkoff list for things that move reviewers are expected to consider, though it seems unlikely that consensus would be found for a list. The existing instructions to move reviewers at WP:MRV seem like an uneasy combination of different ideas of what a reviewer should do. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on additional discussion on my own talk page and the comments you've added to the still-open RfC indicating that the RM discussion should be considered part of the RfC, I'm completely satisfied with your close of the move review. Sorry to have bitten your head off. I also appreciate your stepping in to deal with a contentious situation. Warm regards, Msnicki (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment (diff) you wrote that "the consensus here is to endorse the close". I believe you made mistake. No such consensus exists in the discussion because no uninvolved editors commented the closure. Probably because heated debate over marihuana/canabis. Please leave this move review open for more time to allow other uninvolved editors to comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more frustrating that you ignored the broader problem of sockpuppetry, canvassing, and misuse of sources in the move requests. Instead, you challenged a perfectly good closure on a point of pedantry. Why is that, Antidiskriminator? bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that marihuana/canabis heated debate affected this move review. Now, after marihuana/canabis debate is closed, I believe other noninvolved editors will participate in this discussion if you reopen it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Friend Award
		Please accept this award as a token of good faith and for appreciation of you being a good sport. I apologize for getting snippy with you before...I was still wound up, and I needed that slap in the face. Vjmlhds 03:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...it is policy, per WP:blocking policy#Block reviews, at least when it comes to declining unblock requests: Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You overwrote the new article with an offending (points 2 and 5) redirect and protected it citing a nonsensical “reason” To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country). I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops… I didn’t realize that the protection was only temporary. So I’m going to simply revert you, unless you tried to substantiate your nonsense by something like policy or consensus, not third-party users’ nonsenses and hate mongering. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So… we shall meet at AN/I discussing your outrages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]