User talk:Jenks24
 Archives |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Notes:
|
Fancy a run through the gauntlet?
Hi Jenks. I saw your close at Talk:Norwegian Society, which clued me in that you're not an admin. Though we haven't interacted much directly, I've seen you around WP:RM for a long time. I just took a look at your lengthy contributions, substantive articles created, high edit count, sober and amicable talk page responses and the like and though I can't truly know if Jimmy Hoffa's body isn't lying around somewhere deep in your edits, you seem like an ideal admin candidate. We definitely need more admins, especially, in my opinion, ones who know their way around WP:RM and WP:AT issues. Any desire to put yourself through it? I say it that way (and in the section header) because as I'm sure you know, it can be stressful, have unintended consequences, have people dig around looking for every skeleton, making the tiniest of molehills in your edits into towering mountains. I'm not trying to scare you off, but I wouldn't want you to go into it without your eyes wide open. Anyway, you may have people you know much better than I who would be willing to nominate you, but if you don't, I am offering.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, this is a nice surprise. I've been considering going for adminship for a while, mainly because of how backlogged RM often is, but I do follow RfA a little and the atmosphere there has had me wondering whether the effort would be worthwhile. To cut a fairly short story to its bare bones, this has tipped me over the edge and I would be happy to accept your nomination. I've voted at a few RfAs, but I wouldn't classify myself as intimately familiar with the process, so I will defer to you on how this should best be approached. Cheers (and thanks for the kind words), Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Great. I'm going to take my time writing the nomination, and once done, which may not happen for a week, the timing of when to go live by transcluding the nomination into WP:RFA I will leave up to you (within reason, you can't expect me to post at what is my 4:30 a.m., i.e., now). I would recommend basing that decision on guessing that the first 12 hours after posting, and the next 36 thereafter, should be a block of time when you're the most free to spend time answering additional questions. (Because of the prevalence of USA-based users here, it's not unlikely that no matter when it's transcluded, the most activity will be around 10:00 UTC.) In the mean time, you might want to start blocking out your answers to the standard questions and others commonly asked.
Before any of that, you might start with some light reading such as Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and its always good to review a bunch of past nominations to see what others did, what got asked, why people opposed, what answers got people into hot water, etc.
One thing I think I should say early. Do not make the mistake of even the most neutral advertisement. Anything that could possibly be considered canvassing, will be. So, don't post a notice on your talk page here or anywhere else that you are being nominated or are running; don't casually mention it anywhere, don't tell your bestest WP:buddies, or any detractors (if you have any), about it even as an aside in a casual conversation. Note that the advice seen here is, in my experience, just wrong in practice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, all taken on board, especially the stuff about advertising/canvassing. No rush on the nomination, whenever you get the time. I'll have a read over all those links in the next few days and start drafting my answers to the three stock questions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Great. I'm going to take my time writing the nomination, and once done, which may not happen for a week, the timing of when to go live by transcluding the nomination into WP:RFA I will leave up to you (within reason, you can't expect me to post at what is my 4:30 a.m., i.e., now). I would recommend basing that decision on guessing that the first 12 hours after posting, and the next 36 thereafter, should be a block of time when you're the most free to spend time answering additional questions. (Because of the prevalence of USA-based users here, it's not unlikely that no matter when it's transcluded, the most activity will be around 10:00 UTC.) In the mean time, you might want to start blocking out your answers to the standard questions and others commonly asked.
- Jenks, I've written the nomination. The more I've looked at your edits, the more I think you may have a drama free ride. I can create the RFA page and then you can take your time filling out the rest and transclude whenever you'd like. No one (but for co-nominators, and me and you) should touch the page until it goes live. Shall I go ahead?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, sounds good. Will probably answer the questions in the next day or so. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jenks24. If you want me to transclude, just let me know. If you do it, note the things you should do contemporaneously per the instructions: change the date header to seven days later and add {{subst:RfA talk|USERNAME|EDIT STATS}} to the talk page of the nomination and add your edit stats (you should be opted-in). I doubt you needed me to tell you this. Just being thorough. Good luck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just read over the nomination, many thanks. One query, though: you say I've voted in 66 AfDs, but this says I've edited ~450 unique AfDs, I would guess voting in greater than 400 of those, so I'm curious how you came to the number 66? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weird. I used the same damn tool but it must have had an error, because It did say 66. The difference is significant. I will go change it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just read over the nomination, many thanks. One query, though: you say I've voted in 66 AfDs, but this says I've edited ~450 unique AfDs, I would guess voting in greater than 400 of those, so I'm curious how you came to the number 66? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jenks24. If you want me to transclude, just let me know. If you do it, note the things you should do contemporaneously per the instructions: change the date header to seven days later and add {{subst:RfA talk|USERNAME|EDIT STATS}} to the talk page of the nomination and add your edit stats (you should be opted-in). I doubt you needed me to tell you this. Just being thorough. Good luck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, sounds good. Will probably answer the questions in the next day or so. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've written my answers to the questions. I might tweak them a little, but unless there's something is missing/screwed up/etc I don't think they'll change much before it goes live. It's 11 pm here and I'm planning on transcluding tomorrow morning my time (I'm pretty sure I can follow those instructions) if that sounds good to you. Thanks again for all the help. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Anytime you post is fine with me. Two things in your answers: re-read the following two snippets for missing prepositions: "...it is also one the admin areas..." and "...to get spend so much time on Wikipedia..." By the way, don't forget to accept the nomination in the section set aside for doing so, before transcluding. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as you've already voted I guess you don't need me to tell you it's live! Fingers crossed, Jenks24 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your timing was perfect for me, as I had just walked in the door. ¡buena suerte!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as you've already voted I guess you don't need me to tell you it's live! Fingers crossed, Jenks24 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Richard Jardine page marked for deletion
The subject appeared in the 2009 crime book SIX DEGREES OF PARIS HILTON by Mark Ebner. He makes the claim (to the author) that he is a private figure, and by connecting him to known crime figures, even though he was a victim, his reputation has been damaged. Now by removing him from Wikipedia, we prevent his defense in the public record. This may not be Wikipedia's problem, but it is a problem: If private figures are made public by the Internet, Wikipedia is often the only arbiter of record. If he's a public figure for the purposes of journalism, but a private figure for the purposes of Wikipedia, then something is askew. He doesn't wish to seek redress in the courts. The author conveyed these sentiments to me, and I created the profile. Paulcullum (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Paul. Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our goal is to have articles on notable encyclopedic topics, not a way to set the record straight or advocate a point of view. If we were to write a proper biography of Mr Jardine we should summarise what has been written about him in reliable sources and that would arguably include what Ebner's book says about Jardine. It might also be worth considering that creating this biography of Jardine is actually just giving more prominence to the issue. I've certainly never heard of Ebner and his book (and I doubt I'm alone in that) and this article, which is visible to Wikipedia's millions of readers and can be edited by anyone, could very well have the opposite effect to the one you were trying to achieve. I really hope I'm not coming of too harsh here, as I understand this is an issue that could have real world consequences, but you are correct when you say this is not Wikipedia's problem – for better or worse, Wikipedia is not the place where you can come to right the world's wrongs. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
RfA clarification
Hey, could you clarify what you meant by the last sentence in your response to q6 (from Drmies), your point #2 ("As the article is a BLP, I would default to leaving the potentially problematic article until the situation was resolved.") You would leave the article in what state (with or without the material removed by the IP)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have proofread my answer more thoroughly. What I meant to write was "As the article is a BLP, I would default to leaving the potentially problematic information out of the article until the situation was resolved." Thanks for catching this, Jenks24 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, that was the "right" answer. Your entire answer was quite detailed and thorough - not surprising that you might miss something when reviewing it. Happens to all of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, your support was impressively detailed and researched. Jenks24 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you deserved more than just a perfunctory support !vote, although it's clear you don't need it. I actually started researching you yesterday evening but then allowed myself to be halted by Malleus's reversion of my comment. I'm a very linear guy, and I didn't want to add my support until I heard back from Drmies. All sorted out now.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, your support was impressively detailed and researched. Jenks24 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, that was the "right" answer. Your entire answer was quite detailed and thorough - not surprising that you might miss something when reviewing it. Happens to all of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
May interest you
I thought this may interest you. The relevant question was why did the RfA tracker template have a different number of supporters than in the actual RfA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, that is interesting. I guess I've been hanging around RfA longer than I thought. Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Melbourne
Why can't my image be kept if every other image remains? I see nothing wrong with it, in fact it's a beautiful image and I don't understand the persistent stubbornness and biased behaviour of users on Wikipedia who tend to claim ownership over particular articles. It did not take me long to find that the user Bidgee is considered a bully around here. Ericardo1979 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- You have an WP:OWN issue over your photo being in the Melbourne article FFS. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Look, although I agree your image is nice, it seems pretty clear to me that the other images are of a higher quality. We cannot include every good image we have of Melbourne because that would bloat the article, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think Bidgee or myself is being biased (AFAIK none of the images in the article were taken by either of us), we are genuinely trying to do the right thing by the article. It's great that I see you've now taken the issue to the talk page, but please note that not only are personal attacks unacceptable and can result in you being blocked, they also weaken your argument. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations again on RfA
Congratulations again on RfA, however I honestly think you might want to reconsider maintaining the validity of this earlier RM. The nomination is misleading - Fyunck knows very well that Grasso's Historical Dictionary has diacritics. Courcelles - who is one of the best RM admins - isn't an ideal closer - as an involved editor, though his "I utterly despise diacritics" comment somewhere was presumably a joke. Your own comment that none of the sources used the diacritic was debatable since her bilingual website was linked, but in any case is not the case now since I have added Blic and Grasso... which wouldn't be needed in a non-tennis article given info was uncontroversial.
Requested move 2012 #1
But the real issue isn't the quickness, small view of it, but the page history 2005-2012, and the input of many editors not just to this page but any linking to it, and contributing to the text with edits removed here. Are you really sure that you want to stand with this 4 person move? Is there any precedent for any move of this kind in en.wp's history? I am naturally concerned that since there is no other precedent "Ana Ivanovic" will become a calling-card, as it already has been used in other RM nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I stand by it. There were are actually five supporters of the move, it was listed for a full week and there were no objections. This is actually more support than many RMs get and I don't think it would be right for the closing admin to not close it just because they know dios are a controversial issue and the other side haven't shown up (for all the closing admin knows, the frequent dios supporters saw it but decided not to comment). In the last few weeks, I've seen pro diacritics RMs go through with a similar level of support and I wouldn't question their validity. To the diff, I think that's perfectly acceptable and if there is ever consensus to move back to the previous title I would fully expect the opposite to happen. To you last point of precedence, this is not the only RM I have seen where the consensus was to strip diacritics – I think there have been several tennis ones and a few hockey ones – so I'm too sure what your point is. If you are worried about others using it as a precedent, my only advice would be to refute those claims with your own precedents. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again. Prodiacritics RMs go without comment because they are uncontroversial in the wider (meaning non-tennis/hockey) community. As you note most moves to diacritics go simply on accuracy and reliable sources and never pass via RM because moves to "foreign names" for German composers etc are non-controversial. The problem with this RM is it goes against the stream. You're now going to be a RM admin - this kind of case will come up in 101 areas such as applying sectarian "MOS" to religion articles (I mean the Protestantizing, Catholicizing, Orthodoxizing, Yeshivaizing, Islamizing etc. of certain corners of territory on the encyclopedia). I am worried about this being used as a precedent because it is the precedent. I can find no trace of an East European living person (and citizen) ever having been anglicized like this in en.wp's history. Do you know of one? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I must disagree that it is uncontroversial in the wider community, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC for example. As you can see, RM is almost an exact mirror of that RfC, albeit on a smaller scale. On precedent, I am quite sure that other RMs similar to Ivanovic have got up, but I can't name them for you and considering I have participated in a lot of RMs and there is no archival process for RM, I'm not sure how I would find them. Jenks24 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Any RfC is by its nature controversial. Naturally it is controversial to force sports editors to make their stubs at Janáček, but it is not controversial that the whole of en.wp is at Janáček. Rather than an RfC it is much better that upgrades from Janacek to Janáček happen naturally by the normal editing process as East Europe editors tidy up after sports stubs, and that shouldn't be controversial either, if its poets, politicians, chemists and cellists. The reverse, a move from Janáček to Janacek is extremely controversial - Nico Hülkenberg - because it goes from accuracy to tabloid MOS. Which is why it appears there has never been one (and I say that having looked). This is the first. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that all RfCs are controversial and even in those that are that doesn't mean they don't result in a consensus one way or the other. I feel that moves both ways are controversial and don't see why Eastern European editors' opinions are of more value, or their decisions "more natural", than those who specialise in sports. When I get some time this weekend I'll try and look back through my contribs as I'm sure that Ivanovic is not a lone outlier. As to the Hulkenberg debacle, that was one of the poorest admin decisions I've seen in my time here and, whichever title you or I prefer, I think everyone would agree that the way it was handled is an indictment on the RM process. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- A Czech speaker's edits based on reliable Czech sources for the spelling of a Czech living person is more valuable than a non-Czech speaker's use of unreliable sources on the spelling of a Czech living person. If you find one, give me a holla. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that all RfCs are controversial and even in those that are that doesn't mean they don't result in a consensus one way or the other. I feel that moves both ways are controversial and don't see why Eastern European editors' opinions are of more value, or their decisions "more natural", than those who specialise in sports. When I get some time this weekend I'll try and look back through my contribs as I'm sure that Ivanovic is not a lone outlier. As to the Hulkenberg debacle, that was one of the poorest admin decisions I've seen in my time here and, whichever title you or I prefer, I think everyone would agree that the way it was handled is an indictment on the RM process. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Any RfC is by its nature controversial. Naturally it is controversial to force sports editors to make their stubs at Janáček, but it is not controversial that the whole of en.wp is at Janáček. Rather than an RfC it is much better that upgrades from Janacek to Janáček happen naturally by the normal editing process as East Europe editors tidy up after sports stubs, and that shouldn't be controversial either, if its poets, politicians, chemists and cellists. The reverse, a move from Janáček to Janacek is extremely controversial - Nico Hülkenberg - because it goes from accuracy to tabloid MOS. Which is why it appears there has never been one (and I say that having looked). This is the first. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I must disagree that it is uncontroversial in the wider community, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC for example. As you can see, RM is almost an exact mirror of that RfC, albeit on a smaller scale. On precedent, I am quite sure that other RMs similar to Ivanovic have got up, but I can't name them for you and considering I have participated in a lot of RMs and there is no archival process for RM, I'm not sure how I would find them. Jenks24 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again. Prodiacritics RMs go without comment because they are uncontroversial in the wider (meaning non-tennis/hockey) community. As you note most moves to diacritics go simply on accuracy and reliable sources and never pass via RM because moves to "foreign names" for German composers etc are non-controversial. The problem with this RM is it goes against the stream. You're now going to be a RM admin - this kind of case will come up in 101 areas such as applying sectarian "MOS" to religion articles (I mean the Protestantizing, Catholicizing, Orthodoxizing, Yeshivaizing, Islamizing etc. of certain corners of territory on the encyclopedia). I am worried about this being used as a precedent because it is the precedent. I can find no trace of an East European living person (and citizen) ever having been anglicized like this in en.wp's history. Do you know of one? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops!
There's an unresolved legal threat, and I was looking for an active admin. Was just about to let you know instead of going to WP:AN/I, and then noticed you hadn't got the sysop user-right yet. I guess that makes this 79. Strong support :-)--Shirt58 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks. Hope you can find an active admin soon. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
About Jack Aziz
Hi Jenks24. Need your footy books references for this VFA legend.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
