" 

 == (Archived) Either administrators or rules? == 

  
 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review 
 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves 
 * Talk:Trollhunter 
 * Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Move 
 * Talk:All That Jazz#‎Discussion of the RM 
 * Talk:Firestarter 
 * Talk:Loving You (disambiguation) 
 * Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (discussing only opponents' views, not supporters, like me, as I favor proposal based on familiarity, merit, and significance) Nothing useful, as the closer was accurate on this. 
 *  and  

 I don't get this. I wonder who is wrong: me, the administrators, or the rules? Do we have to rely on judgments of administrators who may or may not interpret discussions correctly? I've been think about reporting on JHunterJ, but I don't know.... Lately, he sees me as a crusader of ""renaming"", but, in spite of flimsy reasonings in the past, I've tried to point out how each title may or may not have merits.    
 : There are differing views in this area.  You will have to learn to live with that.    
 :: There are concerns about closure judgments by JHunter, but my proposals are not the only ones.    
 ::: I could be wrong, George (like I said, I'm not very experienced in this area), but I think Elen is saying that some people will just disagree about the issue. On Wikipedia, people use hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric when it isn't warranted, so someone may call you ""disruptive"" for bringing up the issue when you aren't being disruptive, but just expressing a different opinion. In this case, even though you were accused of that, you probably weren't doing anything wrong.    
 :The problem, George Ho, is not that ""each title may or may not have merits"". It's that we have guidelines and policies for evaluating those merits, and rather that two appropriate courses of action (either apply the existing guidelines and policies, or raise your objections and suggestions for improving them on their talk pages) you instead make move requests without regard to those guidelines and policies and, in particular, immediately re-request several moves that did not answer your questions to your satisfaction. The WP:RM process is not there to cycle over and over again until you've accepted the results. And if you have a question about what the right title might be for an article, rather than proposing a move with several options and abstaining (sometimes even explicitly) from supporting any of them, first open a ""regular"" (non-RM) section on the talk page to ask for other watchers' opinions.     
 ::What's the use of making a regular discussions, anyway? I have begun to trust my instincts and words more than I trust people because I have wise brain, all right? And why do I have to trust anybody, especially you? Imagine you as my mentor... I would decline your offers as temporary mentor over and over.    
 :::In fact, I went to  first because... that's all I can do; I trust him. I'm not wise enough to know how to discuss anything other than proposals. I depend on templates because that's all I can do.    
 ::::If you are not interested in my input, it might reflect your wisdom to avoid statements like ""I've been think about reporting on JHunterJ"", which tend to gain my attention. I would still recommend you not start relying solely on your instincts on WP just yet.     
 :::::What do you mean?    
 ::::::What I said. Which part needs rephrasing?     
 :::::::To what type of ""statements"" were you referring? Well, sin