User talk:Jenks24/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Brow monument and brow monument trail

hi. i am just inquiring about my write up on brow monument and brow monument trail. apparently it was deleted? any idea why? i thought it was moving along smoothly and had been acceptedAbearfellow (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, everything has gone smoothly. The article was accepted and is now at Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail. When moving the article into main space (i.e. making the article live) Dcshank made a misclick and accidentally moved it to Wikipedia:Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail, which I deleted after he then moved it properly to Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail. All articles should not have the "Wikipedia" prefix (e.g. an article should be at United States, not Wikipedia:United States) because we only use "Wikipedia" for instruction pages, such as Wikipedia:Introduction, and not our actual encyclopedia articles. Hope this helps, but feel free to ask any follow-up questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Phew, thanks. i was a bit worried there.Abearfellow (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help clear things up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

Hi, I noticed that you removed a category on a redirection page: Wikipedia:IPA for Kölsch, which I restored. It appears that many editors do not seem to know that categories are not only possible on redirection pages, in fact, they are even desirable in many cases. There are countless predefined categories for usage on redirection pages to help classify the type of a redirect page - see the templates for details. We also use categories on redirection pages to list a target article under different keywords in the same category (to help people searching the category tree for certain keywords). There are many scenarios, where several different subtopics redirect into a single article and the target article should be listed in categories different from its redirects, for example if those categories apply to the title of the redirection page only, not to the target page.

I haven't checked if you removed categories from other redirects as well, but if you did, please put them back in. They have been put there for a reason. :-) Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I know that redirects can be categorised and I often do it myself, generally in the form of those "R from/to ..." templates that you mentioned. Seeing as that redirect was on your watchlist, you may be aware that I recently moved all of those IPA pages from Wikipedia space to Help space. In doing so I noticed that, while many of those IPA pages have redirects (I would put a rough estimate between 50 and 100), Wikipedia:IPA for Kölsch was the only one that was categorised. I came to the conclusion that, while there are plenty of cases where categorising redirects are the norm, this did not appear to one of them and I removed the category so it was in line with the other redirects. It's not a big deal to me and I'm not going to remove the category again, but if you really think it's useful I'd suggest adding the category to the other redirects because the next time someone ends up going through all those pages they'll probably come to the same conclusion I did. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. Thinking about it again, I still find it useful to have the Kölsch redirect categorized. I will consider adding categories to some of the other IPA redirects as well, but it may prove to be difficult to decide if a category is actually useful or not for languages I don't know myself. I guess, someone needs to start... Cheers, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Much Haddam

Thanks for the move! I just wanted to leave a note to say I was totally impressed that you zapped the dab too. That was going to be my next order of business. France3470 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland on the move

First it was Taiwan, then it was Ivory Coast, and now it's Ireland. See here. Is any country safe? Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Haven't been as active recently, but hopefully I'll get some time to have a look at it soon. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

In a bad mood, and sniping at the wrong person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, no worries. I should have checked everything properly. Jenks24 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Son Goku naming

Hi! In light of the naming dispute involving Goku, I did some searches for English RSes that mention the full name Son Goku. I found quite a few: Talk:Goku#Reliable_sources_in_English_using_.22Son_Goku.22 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd RM close on Talk:Recurring enemies in the Mario franchise

Look at this 23 July 2012 edit. At about 05:49, 20 July 2012, your edit history says you were closing & moving Talk:Valley Girls. I just reverted that edit. The reason I noticed this today is that he just reverted to the version of 15:57, 16 July 2012, which had the effect of re-opening an RM which he kept "on ice" for two months. Thought I should left you know as apparently an edit with your signature, that you didn't make, stood live on Wikipedia for over two months. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Had a quick look over it and everything looks like it's OK now, so thanks for fixing that up. I'm assuming it was just a mistake by Unreal7, doubt it was anything malicious (not that you implied it was). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverse canvassing

Is it OK to go around bullying editors out of participating in an RM?[1] Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, look it's not great, but it's not against the "rules" either. Not too sure there's anything that can be done – even if I thought it was gregarious I doubt IIO would give it much attention if I warned him about it. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Earth Diet page deletion

Greetings, I am writing in regards to a page you deleted: The Earth Diet. You are listed on the page as the deleter (11:48, 7 August 2012 Jenks24), so I figured I should contact you before requesting undeletion. The Earth Diet is a legitimate company and the information listed on the page is 100% true, so I'm not sure why it was deleted. If this was a mistake, please put it back up, because ultimately the page not being up could be affecting a person's livelihood even if it's only slightly. If you have any questions regarding the information that was on the page, I would gladly back any of it up for you. Thank you, and I really hope we can clear this up. Best, Sal SFiteni (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi SFiteni. I deleted the article because of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Earth Diet. It wasn't deleted because the information was false, it was deleted because the company is not notable, i.e. it doesn't have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not have articles on every single company in existence, only the notable ones. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Who determines the this notability? And at what level does notability warrant having a wikipedia page? It seems to me that personal opinion took importance over fact. Isn't it a bit ridiculous for a page about an an existing company to be deleted simply because certain people don't deem it notable? There are scores of dieting companies similar to The Earth Diet that have existing wikipedia pages like South Beach Diet or The 100 Mile Diet, so why is this one singled out. I'm going to request the page be undeleted.

SFiteni (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The people who participated in the discussion offer their opinions, preferably backed by evidence, and the closing admin (in this case me) makes an assessment of the consensus. I strongly encourage you read Wikipedia:Notability – as I've already said, to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources (to find out more about this, click on the links in my first reply). Regarding other articles on similar topics, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists gives some good explanations for why this is a poor argument for wanting an article to be kept. Feel free to request it be undeleted (at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in case you weren't aware of the correct location), but I'd strongly suggest you gather some evidence beforehand showing significant coverage, or I'm afraid it's more than likely that your request will be declined. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.SFiteni (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing a NAC

Hi Jenks24, I was hoping you could take a look at an RM NAC I performed. To the extent that there may be consensus, I think my ruling of "not moved" was correct, but an involved editor protested about it to me. Now I'm not so sure. There certainly wasn't consensus to move, but maybe it would have been smarter to rule "no consensus" or relist. What do you think? Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken a while to reply to this. Just read over the discussion – it's a mess really. Clear numerical edge for those opposing the move and it's hard to discount votes as being canvassed when no evidence is provided. The actual content of the discussion amounts to "the sources say this"/"no they don't, they actually say this" with no actual evidence being provided by both sides. Clearly there was no consensus to move and I think a close of "not moved" was fine (would definitely endorse a close like that at MRV as within "admin discretion") even if I probably would have gone with "no consensus" because, although there was a clear numerical majority, the actual arguments were equally weak. I really don't think a relist would have helped much in this case. Looking at the discussion on your talk, I note that you were under the impression that NACs shouldn't be "no consensus" – this probably stems from "no consensus" NACs being strongly discouraged at AfD and if a NAC of "no consensus" gets taken to a noticeboard the closer normally gets slammed. Things are generally a bit more lax at RM, so you should (generally) feel free to close as no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks; I respect your judgment. You're right that I was confused about no consensus rulings because of how that works at AfD. I'll go ahead and stick with the "not moved" ruling, since that's the way consensus went to the extent that there was consensus at all. That shouldn't prejudice future RMs there, and I'll add a note to that effect. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Neve Shalom

Two editors opposed Number57's proposal that this stable name be changed to the Israeli term, myself and NHS100. Having registered my disagreement, and under a 1 month suspension, I noted I could not participate in further argument, but registered my opposition a month ago. No further discussion took place, as far as I can see. Even with the one support vote on the talk page, that makes 2-2, no reason for changing the title. As it is, we now have a village self-designated with two names to reflect the two cultures designated only by the Israeli name, and this violates WP:NPOV. Such moves should not be made unless there is a clear, unambiguous indication from the wider community, which however did not participate or join in the requested discussion. Or have I missed something? Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, you did not oppose. You simply noted that you will be not be participating in the discussion. Even if we do take it as "2–2", though, RMs (as with most other Wikipedia processes) are not decided by number of votes, they are decided by consensus. On reading the discussion I came to the conclusion that the arguments in support of the move were far stronger than those in opposition. Regarding your NPOV concern, no one made that argument in the discussion. As to the participation, the RM was open for over a month (RMs are only supposed to only go for a week) and RMs can't really be left open indefinitely in the hope that the very subjective "wider community" participates. If you think more input is needed, you are free to start a RfC on the subject. I should also add that if this answer is unsatisfactory, RM closes can be reviewed at WP:MRV. Jenks24 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was reported on 27 August. That, and my respect for Number57 meant, having registered my belief his arguments were incoherent, I wouldn't (and forseeably couldn't) participate in any discussion, which I expected would be substantial. Please note my remark:

Number, I won't participate on this, since my views are clear here, and I'd prefer that whatever decision is taken, be taken by the wider community without I/P editors like myself getting involved and making this look like a partisan tussle

So, in the discussion you’ve just closed, you had the proposer and the opposer, waiting for wider community input. None really arrived. Just one comment that appeared to support Number57

It would appear from both coverage in reliable sources and common sense (the community is in Israel) that the Hebrew name is the best choice for the article. But Wahat al-Salam would also be a great improvement over the status quo.

As for NPOV, not mentioned because for regulars this is the fundamental objection and is implicit in the remark 'what is important is that one language should not be prioritised over another; this holds both as a general principle, and even more so in this case, given the purpose of the community'. Since the contributing editors are experienced, know policy, and don't need flagwaving, it wasn't mentioned.

BDD wrote support, but says (a) judging from the press (i.e. the dubious statistics) the Hebrew name is the best choice, but the Arab name would be a great improvement over the status quo. His vote is not reflected in his comment.

The major point is that, no independent community input was forthcoming, save for BDD. You therefore have Number59, BDD (ambiguous) vs NSH001 and my arguments.

You say consensus is what decides, and there is no consensus. You then say your review of the arguments favoured Number59's position. Number59's arguments rest only on the fact that it is in Israel, and reported by the Israeli press in Hebrew in the usual Israeli term. It is a dual community specifically premised on both cultures and languages. There has been no argument raised that explains why the self-designation (as with many other places I listed) which represents two community cultures should be overthrown to highlight one POV. That's my view, and thanks for the heads up for where I might request review. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Were you expecting the closing admin to know you had been reported? You didn't mention it and you can't reasonably expect every single admin to monitor all the goings on at AE. Again, you did not oppose – you could have but chose not to. I did glance at the thread above the RM and from that it was clear that you were against a move, but you gave no reasons in the actual RM so (at best) your comment may as well have read "Oppose. I don't agree. ~~~~", which obviously carries little weight. Again you're talking about the "wider community", but I've already said the term is subjective and the RM ran for a month longer than it should have. My mistake before in saying NPOV wasn't brought up in the RM – "neutrality" is mentioned once – but the fact is that neutrality =/= "we'll use this hybrid name that no sources use so that both sides feel this is a compromise". That goes against the article titles policy and it isn't actually what NPOV would recommend either. I think you're misconstruing (or maybe misunderstanding) what BDD wrote – by "It would appear", I think it's pretty clear that he's saying that from the research he did this is what the situation looks like to him. (BBD, on the off chance you still have my talk on your watchlist and are reading over this, feel free to clarify what you meant.) Yes, it's unsurprising that he said Wahat al-Salam would be better than cramming two titles into one (and using a tilde for some inexplicable reason). See the many archives of Talk:Sega Genesis for another example of where it was (eventually) decided trying to have both names in the title, so as to appease both sides, was not in line with Wikipedia's titling policy. It's worth noting that many of the RM regulars who commented there felt that picking either one would at least be an improvement. Back on topic, I don't think Hebrew vs Arab really came into it, what convinced me was that English-language sources preferred the "Israeli" title. If anyone had have shown evidence to the contrary, or even made a solid argument refuting the assertion, the RM probably would have ended as no consensus. To sum up, I felt Number57's and BDD's arguments were stronger (and I did not find BDD's support to be ambiguous) because there comments were in line with WP:AT and the actually provided some grounds for their claims. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, which is a courtesy rarely observed. I think the problem was that these things are sensitive, and require extensive discussion, by several neutral outsiders like yourself, since many issues were not raised, and neither NHS001 apparently, or myself, could get one going, and the community as you note ignored it. I won't rerun or extend the arguments. I asked Philip Baird Shearer to look over it, on his page though, since he handled a similar request for a name change back in 2006. I've opened a new section just in case fresh eyes might like to take up the case and review it. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, I fully agree that an extensive discussion and more participants would have been better, but unfortunately that was not the case. I'm also interested to see PBS's opinion as he is a very experienced RM admin. Just saw your comments at the article talk page – the edit window has been changed for everyone. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)#Upcoming changes to the edit window (please read). It's irritated me, too. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks here, and on PBS's talk page. Unfortunately I can't devote much time to Wikipedia editing for the time being, but yes, I will raise another WP:RM, but only after leaving it for a while. As for the tilde, I explained the reasoning for that at the end of the section preceding the RM. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Just wanted to check something with you, mainly to see if im remembering something you told me correctly. Should Cite News only be used for printed press. i.e. The Daily Telegraph, where the title is in italic and not for instance the BBC where cite web would be used. It was a long time ago and i may well be remembering it incorrectly.Blethering Scot 20:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You can use {{cite news}} for the BBC and other non-print sources, but most people don't and I probably wouldn't recommend it. If you do make sure to use the "|publisher=" parameter so that it isn't italicised. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Santander, Spain

Hi Jenks. I think an RM with as many opposes as supports deserves an explicit rationale, if you don't mind. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll write one up in a minute. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Hazi Aslanov#Requested move 2012

Hi. Why did you move Azi Aslanov without consensus ? Takabeg (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. My reading of the discussion is that there was a consensus to move the article and that's why I closed it as such. I can elaborate if you want. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LittleBen (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I was already aware of that thread. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I clocked the ANI complaint. It's 50KB and still rolling. It's even longer than the SPI complaint. I hear LLC will collect the complaints against me and put them out as a book. I'm hoping for a giant Arbcom blowout myself. Kauffner (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Related requested move!

Can you tell me how to include a related requested move, as I have done here: Talk:Tapas_Paul#Requested_move (see at the bottom). Both the requests on same spelling change of surname (of father and unmarried daughter)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tito. I think it's fine to leave a note on the talk page, but you should have started a new section, not edited the old RM section (which states The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.). Hope that helps. Jenks24 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, no that one was not to alert/notify anyone, no one is watching/gonna reply. The intention was to keep it as a part of the preserved discussion so that in future the related/very similar move can be found too. Thanks! Okay, I'll add below archived portion (same section) from now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hope you have seen it, they are saying it is not possible: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Requests_made_by_an_editor --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Essendon FC page

Okay, I will add further citations; part of my reasoning is to reflect the fact that the club is involved with a charitable cause beyond just football. It seems reasonable to presume that such activity is undertaken due to a pride underpinning their decision to become involved. I also think it is important that figures like football players are perceived and understood as multi-dimensional people who are not just "celebrities". I am aware that original research is disallowed on Wikipedia, for good reason, but if both the club and its management was to be asked about this matter, I would be incredibly surprised if a decision is made to omit such information. Of course, I do not expect to expand this section beyond what currently exists, but I certainly think that it is worth mentioning (in the same way that other celebrities have been recognized for their charity work). Furthermore, I do not own a dog or support the campaign in any way.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dobrivoj Rusov

Hi, Can you undelete please article about Slovak football goalkeeper Dobrivoj Rusov. He made his professional debut for FC Spartak Trnava against MŠK Žilina on 20th October 2012. -IQual (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

By your kindly history merging. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Move review

Thanks for taking a look see at the Move review for Mexican-American War. What would you suggest at the best next step to getting this situation corrected? Apteva (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, my advice would be to let it drop. Sometimes you just have to accept that your opinion or your reading of Wikipedia policy/guideline is not the same as the consensus. If you really must continue on this crusade, I guess a WP:RFC is the only option available, though I think it should be pretty clear that you'll just get the same result. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was how do I change the "consensus". It obviously went in the wrong direction, and has caused nothing but problems since. Apteva (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, my advice would be to let it go. While you are free to believe that the discussion (or consensus) "obviously went in the wrong direction", you need to accept that sometimes your opinion will differ from the community's—no matter how correct you believe your opinion to be. Jenks24 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Khooni Chowk

Hi Jenks24. I just found that the redirect Khooni Chowk has been deleted because it was redirecting to a deleted or non-existent page. Was it not redirecting to Green Square, Mingora. It is possible that I might have screwed up the redirect somehow, but I had intended it to redirect there. Would it be possible to undelete it so that I can see the coding and fix it if necessary? OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted it because it was a redirect to itself (i.e. it pointed to "Khooni Chowk"). But seeing as it was meant to point elsewhere, I've undeleted it and it now points to "Green Square, Mingora". Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have been on "auto-pilot". Sorry for the trouble. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, happens to all of us. Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move decision

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bazonka (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have discussed this with you before raising it at the ANI forum. Could you please explain why the Requested Move at Talk:Union Jack#Requested move resulted in a decision to Move? The !votes were fairly evenly split - mostly opting to Move (14), but a sizeable proportion Opposing (11), which seems like No Consensus to me. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, happy to discuss it. You've almost answered your own question by using the term "!votes" – it's not a vote and therefore it is strength of argument that is more important than the raw numbers. As I said in my close, those supporting (in general) gave much stronger, policy-based arguments. They showed that Union Jack is the most common term for the subject and, while many of those opposing asserted that Union Jack was incorrect, none of them provided any evidence to back up that claim. Also of some relevance was the claim that Union Flag is arguably ambiguous. Hope this helps, but as Nobody Ent said at ANI, you can appeal RM closures at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

– Fayenatic London 15:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Teen_Kanya_(2012_film)#Requested_move

I am trapped here! Please give suggestions about this RM. I think this has become an unusual RM. If you want to you can close this RM right after moving/not moving it. Since there is not any active Bengali film portal, I could not find any other way to solve. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I closed it as not moved and left an explanation there. Hope that helps. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish to take it forward to DYK with the title in the hook. I have 7 days in hand (article created just few hours ago). So, I'll try to be sure before going forward. Or I'll cancel the DYK plan if I can not decide anything. BTW, is not it "an RM" or was it a typo? --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope you think of something for the DYK. And yes, I should have written "an". Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

An editor has asked for a Move review of Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Lihaas (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A little common sense

Say listen, I don't suppose you could take the effort to propose that rfd, or just go ahead and delete that. I didn't look at the history, and it appears that this is a double waste of my time, and will probably be one to someone else someday. Greg Bard (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who wants it deleted so the onus is really on you to go to the effort. Personally, I don't see the harm in keeping it: redirects are cheap and it looks like a plausible typo to me. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Request move common mistakes and issues

Hello, I have started preparing a note on common mistakes and issues of WP RM. Please see this when you have time: User_talk:Titodutta/Essays/Requested_Move:_Ideas_and_Opinions#Primary_talk. I'll copy paste this message in two more users' talk pages who are also active in RM discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox AFL player

since you provided no example of breakage, I have reverted your edit here and at WP:TFD/H. Yes, your attempts were not successful, but what do you think this was about? I look forward to your objections on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It didn't "break" anything, but it hasn't really improved things (if anything it just looks weird to have the old format sort of squashed into the new infobox), has it? Not to diminish your efforts, as I appreciate you are one of the few people willing to take this on in the year and a half it's been at TFD/H, but it seems like you've just added the old parameters to the new infobox, so nothing's really been improved and the intended format hasn't been preserved. What's the point of a merge if nothing changes? That's why I want to leave it at TFD/H – so that people can see that we still need something/someone to change the old params to the new params. Removing this from TFD/H hides it and no one will ever get around to it. What do you mean by "your attempts were not successful"? Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6". Thank you. -- Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that you are correct and there's something I've missed, and I'd welcome your contributions there, but I'd like to seek some other voices as well. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. Likewise, it's possible you're correct and I'm under the wrong assumption. Hopefully the discussion brings some resolution. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Logged out

You edited WP:AN while logged out. I assumed that was unintentional, so I undid it and hid the revision [2]. I re-insterted the comments, but you may want to check them to make sure everything is OK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have made it clearer in my comment that I knew I was editing as an IP and didn't much mind if people could see it. Maybe I should get one of those trendy alt accounts. Thanks anyway for your prompt action, it is better to be safe than sorry in many of these situations. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Meal for Three

Can you check please. Is that wordpress.com link certain as a web-record of a real printed source? Because Straits Times is printed. Regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know and I don't know how to check either. Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but if you were concerned that it wasn't a reliable representation of the real source, you should have brought that up at the RM. I'll add that there's no prejudice against a new RM as the one I closed wasn't highly trafficked. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as I said on the talk, yes it's my fault I didn't check at the time, but the way the conversation was going it looked like we were simply discussing the pinyin name, which is the WP:COMMONNAME after all given that it's a Chinese album. Not criticizing your move, a late support for English came in tipping the balance. But having now seen the move and having to check it the only press mention I can find of any release notice is the Straits Times one. I have no idea what this wordpress.com link is. Thanks, but I won't put in a RM for something this trivial. I only bothered to look since I filled in the track translations. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Vague comment

hello user talk:Jenks24 my name is Brianna how are you today.u can message me on my talk page Bratanna95(talk)November8,2012 10:53a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bratanna95 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry_and_Christianity New move proposal

Hi, You commented at the start of the year on a proposal to move this article, which failed. I've now set up a different proposal at Talk:Idolatry_and_Christianity#Discussion, & your comment would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gyula Bodola

Hello! You renamed the page of Gyula Bodola to Iului Bodola. Gyula Bodola was Hungarian. His name Iului was forced by Romanian power. Gyula Bodola was Hungarian citizenship from 1940 till he died. I don't find any real reason for using a created name (Iului). - Csurla (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Csurla. We don't title articles because of whether a person is Romanian, Hungarian or Martian, Wikipedia's policy is to use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. If you can show that "Gyula Bodola" is actually more common in reliable sources, then feel free to start a new requested move. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the information. It seems to me this rule not too logical. It is too British. - Csurla (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone like Me

I don't know why, but when you moved Someone like Me, the talk page stayed at Talk:Someone Like Me (Atomic Kitten song). Unreal7 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Anthony Appleyard has already fixed it up, but thanks for letting me know. Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beta tester

Hi Jenks, I'd like to enlist your help to 'beta test' my new sources script. I've written up most of the documentation and built up most of the script functionality. There are already three extensive in-built libraries/vocabularies (1,2,3) but which I will continue extending. There's still work to be done to minimise the disruption to existing linkages and optimise the precision in dab. I'd value your input regarding any aspect, whether the documentation, objectives, structure or the library itself, and of course how it works. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• At this stage, if you are OK with the trialling, I'd ask you to pay equal attention to false negatives as much as false positives. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'd be happy to test it out. I'll 'install' it after replying here. I should add I'm struggling to have a lot of time for Wikipedia at the moment, so hopefully I'm not the only one willing to help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I noticed there wasn't much activity at your end, just do what you can. I am aiming to officially launch it on 1 December subject to satisfactory trials, so hope you will have some time between now and then. Oh, FYI, Batty has had problems running the script on IE8, just so you know. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • BTW, the script I would like you to test resides at User:Ohconfucius/test/Sources.js; you might need to disable 'User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js' as there may be conflicts due to identical function names. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • PS, I'll be away for a week. So if you would like to help, you can save up your comments and post them to User talk:Ohconfucius/script. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6

You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.

Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate move

This user told me about the move here and he has moved the page without waiting for anyone's opinion or consensus! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't looked too closely at the case in question, but in general there is nothing wrong with boldly moving a page if you believe it will be uncontroversial. However, if you (or anyone else) disagrees with the move you should feel free to revert it and go through a proper RM discussion. See WP:BRD. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

T:AH

I think you made a poor decision with that move. This is similar to requests to rename featured articles for (at best) trivial reasons - such moves have no real benefit and they can create problems for those who use the page, including bots. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I stand by me decision. As I wrote in my closing comment, if you can show technical problems that have been made by the move, and they can't be fixed relatively easily, I will move it back. Also, in case you were not aware, RM closures can now be reviewed at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your response did not provide much explanation of your reasoning. If you have nothing further to say, please initiate a move review. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so your first comment was asking for a more detailed explanation, not just expressing your dissatisfaction with my close. For future reference, you might want to be less oblique when discussing things with me. Here goes with the explanation: WP:AT doesn't explicitly cover templates (and there is no guideline for them), but in closing I tried to follow the general principles of that policy. Those in support offered several (relatively) compelling reasons to move – consistency with other related templates, easier to read, easier to find (debatable, but still arguably correct and not refuted in the RM) and accessibility to newer editors. Yes, there were also some crap arguments in support, but that's what the decent arguments boiled down to. In opposition we have: several users claim it will break things and/or make things difficult for bots/scripts, but there's no evidence provided (and it's a bit cheeky, but I will note nothing of the sort seems to have happened in the weeks after the move); the large majority of transclusions use the current title (a relatively solid argument if not one that normally holds mush weight at RM); a claim that inconsistency would make things harder for you but again without evidence; "a redirect exists" – one of the worst possible RM arguments; a claim that the move would create a lot of work and possibly break things, but again without any evidence; and the rest was pretty much per you. So, my reading of the RM was that the support arguments were significantly stronger than the oppose. Two notes: sorry if my analysis of the oppose comments reads a lot like I'm deconstructing your vote, but that's basically because most of the oppose votes were per you; and sorry if this reads as a bit disjointed (and for the excessive use of parentheses!), but it was a few weeks ago and I had jog my memory a few times as I was writing this. Last, I'm not sure why you want me to initiate a move review – I still stand by my decision. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Any issues you fail to mention now will be considered in analyzing your awareness of all aspects of this move. That you have now called me "cheeky" is itself evidence, considering that you said nothing of how the user who made the nomination had previously moved it in violation of previous discussion, then asserted without evidence that the move was not controversial, then claimed without evidence that the move without not affect any script or bot, and then claimed as a formal matter of record that he would fix any and all issues that may ever happen as a result of this move. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I was calling myself cheeky for noting that the move does not appear to have adversely affected any bots, scripts, etc. I was aware of the aspects you mention (and plenty of others, the above is only a summary of the points that impacted the outcome of the RM), but I don't see anything incredibly wrong with what Thumperward did. Yes, he shouldn't have moved it without discussion, but when this was brought to his attention he moved it back less than 24 hours later and started a RM. As the template was located at the long term title the fact that it had been recently moved did not factor into my decision. And yes, Thumperward did not offer any evidence, I assume because it is difficult to prove a negative in this case. To perhaps clarify what I wrote above, when I say "evidence", even an explanation of how this would have affected your bot would have carried much more weight than a simple assertion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody asked, so clearly that consideration was irrelevant to those "voting" for the move. That's one of the ssues here - those "voting" for moving this showed no regard for the time and effort of someone who has spent years working on this. Indeed, one of those "voters" was turned down at RfA recently, and one of the reasons was a disregard for the work of others on this site. "Votes" for a change that do not cite any policy or guideline for that change are, almost by definition, ILIKEIT votes that do not merit further comment. That some of them empty votes were accompanied by incivility is further indication that something else was going on here than discussion a move. Gimmetrow 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid "nobody asked" doesn't pass muster. I can only judge the arguments as they are made and if no evidence is presented then that will factor into my decision. OK, you're taking this way too personally (what on earth does someone failing a RfA have to do with this?) and my advice at this point would be to drop it. To me at least, your constant assertions that people only supported this move to irritate you are coming across as paranoid. If not, start a MRV, but I won't be changing my decision. Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

When the author of software says it will affect things, and you don't want to take that person's word, then you need to say more that just make attacks on that author. But that's fine. User:Thumperward has formally declared as a matter record that 1) there cannot possibly be any issues, and 2) User:Thumperward will fix any and all issues that may ever result The only practical way User:Thumperward could possibly "fix" issues is to move the template back to where it was. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)