User talk:Jenks24/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for further reviewing Cheers (Drink to That) :) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the barnstar! Jenks24 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jules Lund

Hello, I am not from Australia but have aggressively advocated keeping articles on notable Australian topics. However, this article is a WP:BLP disaster in its current form. So, if you add a few solid, reliable sources that give significant biographical coverage, and eliminate the BLP violations, I will withdraw my "delete" vote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I do understand where you're coming from. The guy's definitely notable, but the article is in a terrible state. I'll see what I can do about adding some refs and tidying it up in the next few hours. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The AfD has been withdrawn, but I'll still try and do something for it in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

For helping improve the prose in 1+1 so that it would hopefully pass its GA review. Thank you for your kindness and patience. Only i know how many editors i had requested before you did the copy-edit. Keep up the good work and for me, you're definitely one of the most valued copy-editors from now. Again and again, my heartfelt thanks to you. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 17:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much for the kind words. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Whenever you have time, have a look at that section for SL. Goodnight. I am off to bed now. It is very late here. Hmmmmm, before i go, what impression you got of me, a crazy Beyonce fan, right? Lol. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 19:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to have a look at SL tomorrow. Haha, not at all. Everyone edits whatever they're passionate about – it wouldn't be any fun otherwise. People probably think I'm odd for editing articles on obscure football players :) Jenks24 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well people here often criticize me for sticking to Beyonce's articles. LOl. I have to go now. Goodnight. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 19:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you still remember about "Single Ladies"? Jivesh 1205 (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, Jivesh, it had slipped my mind. I'll look over it in the next few hours. Jenks24 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter. Take your time my dear friend. Jivesh 1205 (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've made some small tweaks. In all, it was pretty good and there wasn't much I could improve on. That said, I do understand why you wanted me to have a look at that section. Sometimes it feels simply like a collection of separate incidents/performances/parodies with no real flow, which is what the really good FAs have. I've done all I really can for that section, though—if it needs to be better to meet the FA criteria, then I'm afraid you will need a better copyeditor than myself. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, i could not have said that better. And thank you a lot. The more i say about you amazing copy-edits the less it is. Your work is simply flawless (in my opinion). Take care. See you. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the kind words. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, do give Beyonce's music a try. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

aircraft categories

I've created a full nomination for the aircraft categories you nominated for Speedy renaming. Feel free to comment on the new nomination. I haven't retagged the categories, as the link from Speedy should suffice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming

Jenks, that was very kind of you. And I should have realised this was the process ... muddle-headed me. Pity it's a virtually unused category <blushes>.

I've never looked through that CFDS page: C2B looks strange, dealing first things that seem to be contradictory:

B. A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.

• Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
• Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Georgia → Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state)).

Should it be "contracting" instead of "expanding"? Tony (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Y'know, I've never noticed that C2B contradicts itself, but now that you've pointed it out, it seems blindingly obvious. It should be "expanding" for the example to make sense and indeed it is our standard practice to use the expanded name (see Category:United States and its subcats). And the second example given is also the common practice – that is categories generally follow articles for disambiguation, e.g. the article is at Georgia (U.S. state) (I would assume because U.S. is more concise than United States), so the category is at Category:Georgia (U.S. state). I think the problem is the example used – there are plenty of times when disambiguation is required, so I'm sure a example that doesn't appear to contradict the one directly above it can be found. I'll drop a note at WT:CFD. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A few things come into my head. Where possible, WP:TITLE wants concision in article names, and I presume category names follow the same idea, although perhaps not quite as strictly, since they don't appear as clutter in links and at the top of pages in big font as much. And did you know that the premier US style guide, Chicago Manual of Style, last year reversed its long-standing rule about dotting "U.S."? It's far too early to consider changing category names, but I'd not object if someone creates a new one with "US". Most Americans don't mind or don't even notice the absence of the dots.

It does concern me in category lists when I see book and company titles as article titles when they look like concepts. I'm tempted to insert "(book)" or "(company)", but don't because this is apparently frowned on. Tony (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct that categories also try to be concise, but aren't as strict as article titles. That's interesting, I didn't know the CMoS had changed their rule. I much prefer US as well, but U.S. is still in such dominant usage by Americans that it's probably too early to change – hopefully it's a sign of things to come, though.

Also interesting about books and companies that appear to be concepts. The problem is that to add "(book)", the actual article actually has to be renamed to add "(book)" because the categories only reflect article titles (and that goes against being concise). What would be useful would be if the listings in categories could be made to realise when the article title is in italics and reflect that – wouldn't help for companies, but it would for books. But that is something that would probably take a lot of technical know-how to implement. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Sorry, I did not get your point the first time around. Thanks for being patient and re-explaining it to me. I left another question on Talk:Frederico Chaves Guedes#Requested move. Also, would you care to comment on Talk:Thiago Emiliano da Silva#Requested move, a slightly similar case, but in this case, all the other footballers with similar name went with slightly different spelling. — MT (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'll have a look at the other RM, as well. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Are you able to offer some input to this ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, at first glance I thought you were asking me to do a screencast of myself doing NPP – then I saw your comment, which is pretty similar to my original thoughts on seeing the request. Anyway, I'll look over the whole "New Page Patrol Zoom Interface" proposal tomorrow (it's 2.30 am here) and hopefully leave a comment or two (though I must admit I haven't patrolled Special:NewPages much recently). On first glance, although it's not what the community wanted, at least it looks like a step in the right direction, i.e. doing something. Jenks24 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your advice?

Hi, I didn't know what to do about this weird article, which could well be an opinion piece, aside from adding a few tags to it. What's your opinion? Tony (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my impressions of the article are the same as yours. Looks like it was created in good faith, and the creator has tried to source it, but it really does read like an opinion piece/personal essay. At the moment, it is a violation of policy (WP:NOTESSAY) and needs to be deleted. The problem is that looking through gbooks and gscholar, my layman's opinion is that the subject may actually be notable. It would probably be best to take it to AfD – if it's not improved I assume it will be deleted, but if we're lucky someone with some expertise on the topic may be able to do a rewrite that brings it inline with policy. That said, it might be best to hold fire for a day or two to see if the editor responds to the tags you've placed on the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom through choice. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

John Munro

Thanks for contributing to the John Munro naming discussion. I've put the last two cases up for requested move again, and you might want to contribute again. Schwede66 04:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I commented there. Jenks24 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I (We) Need Your Help.

Hi. I hope you are in good health. My friend asked me for help. He wanted me to re-write something but i just kept reading it without figuring a better way of re-writing:

Jessica Biel, Timberlake's then-girlfriend, was reportedly upset with her boyfriend because of the sexual chemistry between him and Rihanna during the filming of the video.[44] Tim Nixon of The Sun concurred, writing: "[The video] can't be easy for Chris Brown and Jessica Biel to watch. The red hot chemistry between their respective partners Rihanna and Justin Timberlake in the pop stars' new video must be hard to stomach."[45] Speaking to Access Hollywood, Timberlake described the experience of shooting the video: "I got there and I was like really? I'm the guy in the video. So, I had to give them all insecurities about that. But yeah we had a great time, we goofed around at the shoot most of the time.""

>>>This seems like a "showbiz" column / writeup.' - as stated by the peer reviewer.

The article is here. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 07:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jivesh. I'm well and I hope you are, too. I think the reason that paragraph reads as a showbiz writeup is because it's over half of it is directly quoting from a tabloid and a "gossip"-y TV show. My suggestion would be either to cut it down to maybe one or two sentences, or to not directly quote and paraphrase in a more encyclopedic tone. Here's a suggestion (but please note I haven't read the rest of the article or the sources):

It was reported by Digital Spy that Jessica Biel, Timberlake's girlfriend at the time, was "fuming" at Timberlake because of the sexual chemistry between he and Rihanna in the video. Tim Nixon of The Sun concurred, writing that the "red hot chemistry" between Rihanna and Timberlake must be difficult for their partners, Chris Brown and Biel respectively, to watch. [It would be great if we could then have a source saying something along the lines of "nothing happened, the tabloids have blown this out of proportion", but if not *shrug*.] Speaking to Access Hollywood, Timberlake described the enjoyable experience he had while filming the video, saying that most of the shoot was spent "goof[ing] around".

I think that's a bit better, but not a whole lot – it still has a bit of a "showbiz column" feel, but I think that there is no way to write that info without having a little of that tone creep in. I must admit that the first sentence makes me feel a little uncomfortable – while Digital Spy is a reliable source, I'm not sure if it is of high enough quality to report on negative information of living people. I would seriously consider removing it, but that's up to you and the person you are working on the article with. If you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to ask. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are simply angelic (at least to me. Lol.) Thank you again. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Squads versus team rosters

Hello Jenks.

A month or so ago, there was a multiple move of some pages concerning the volleyball team members lists in the 2008 Summer Olympics.

In the move discussion, you insisted that, in a volleyball context, "squad" was preferred over "team roster". There was no input from other editors, so I took your word for it. But now, having checked the source in the Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's squads, I couldn't help but notice that it in fact refers to the teams as "team rosters".

I'm now wondering if the page names here should be reconsidered. What is your view? What do you have to back your claim up with, so to speak, that it should be squads and not team rosters. I mean, if it's only for the consistency with respect to previous years, then (pages of) the previous years could be renamed for consistency. It means more work, that's for sure, but what are we here for?

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi HandsomeFella. Yes, I recall those discussions and that I did insist on squad. I just checked that source as well and you are correct – it does say team rosters. I can't remember if I look up sources at the time, but I think it's likely that I did not and was only looking to other Wikipedia articles for consistency. You seem to be more knowledgable on this subject than me, and to have researched it more thoroughly, so if it is common practice to use "team roster" instead of "squad", then I wholeheartedly agree that is what we (Wikipedia) should use. I also agree that if we do this, they should all be consistently renamed. Thanks for researching this more thoroughly than I did at the time and if you start a requested move, please do drop me a note about it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jenks. I'll be sure to notify you when I get around requesting the move. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RM posted! Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've commented there. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rehab

Hello Jenks. Thank You for the c/e of the music video paragraph, a favor that Jivesh asked from you. I also appreciate the c/e. When I look at the sentence that you left note, you are right, it's kind off stupid :). Can you read the synopsis and tell me how to re-write the sentence. Thank You — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 22:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tomica. No problem about the ce. I just read over the music video section, but I'm still not sure what's meant by the lead sentence. At a guess, though, I think this may be what you intended with the sentence: "The video features Rihanna and Timberlake playing an ex-couple with bitter sexual chemistry, who are <something – fighting? getting back together?> in a desert." Keep in mind I have never seen the video, so that may be way off. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you do a thorough copy-edit of the article. They are asking at the FAC? Would you be able? I would be very grateful. Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy, but I'll try and take a look at it. As I've said before, though, I have never written a FA, so I'm not sure that a copyedit by me will make the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", which is what's required. Jenks24 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It doesn't matter. I want you to try here and give a "blessing" to this article. I trust you ;) ! Take your time. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have time check the "Rehab" article tomorrow (You are in Australia so maybe it's today for you, cause here is 23:52) :) ! Thank You ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's 9 in the morning here :) I'll definitely take a look sometime in the next ~12 hours. Jenks24 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You can fix some of the prose per these comments. I already fixed some of them, but you can also check them. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e. However, I can see that you didn't c/e the show-biz looking paragraph. In the FAC, User:Journalist commented: "It was reported by Digital Spy that Jessica Biel, Timberlake's girlfriend at the time, was "fuming" at Timberlake because of the sexual chemistry between he and Rihanna in the video.[52] " Please leave gossip and National Enquirer-type news out of the article. If you want to say it differently, you can state that critics commented on the sexual chemistry between the two singers, so something of the sort." Do you have some idea now?! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 08:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries about the ce, I'm just sorry it took me so long to get around to it. I've just left some comments at the FAC and I agree that para is an issue. Have a look at my latest edit and see what you think. By the way, for ref 52 the original article is from Digital Spy, but the web cite article is from the Daily Mail and they are completely different. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like how the section looks now. Btw ooops I made a mistake while archiving the references. I will fix it right now ! :) — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got the article and the FAC watchlisted, so if anything comes up that I can help with I'll certainly try to. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really respect it. What do you think about this. Is this a significant "ground" for it?— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that gives it a little more context, but it doesn't really explain why or what the contrast is. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I bet that this explains it. You can see the original text here. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I do understand now. The bit that you were quoting was from a footnote, so I scrolled up to p. 85 where the footnote was from and found out that the contrast the author was talking about. I just added a little to article that I hope cleared things up – tell me if you think it's ok or not. Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking me, it looks excellent. I hope FAC reviewers will accept it. Btw can you change the stuff in Production and Recording about the employed technique. I explained you at the FAC page. Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks and replied at the FAC. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename template

Thanks for your edit at Talk:Ursuline Convent, I presume making a fix. Though I am a bit puzzled; your message says " don't subst that template". On my first edit I didn't, but then I saw the template itself had the text "Do not simply add this template to page-move requests; instead, use {{subst:Requested move}} or {{subst:move-multi}}", so I reedited to substitute as the template told me. It looks like conflicting messages, or am I missing something? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, I agree it is unclear and it took me a while to figure it out. Basically, you should use {{subst:Requested move}} which will result in {{Requested move/dated}} (which is a different template) which you should not substitute and leave as is. When you substituted it, the RM bot wasn't picking it up (I assume because the bot only searches for {{Requested move/dated}} and not the actual code that is within that template, but that technical stuff flies over my head). Hope that helped, but please tell me if that's not clear. Jenks24 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, the text on the template could be clearer. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I posted eight (I think it was 8) more redirects for action. Just checked and someone deleted the lot without reading the instructions. Aaargghh! -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That must be frustrating, but I've just added to your note on the deleting admin's talk page. I'm fairly sure he will restore them as soon as he sees the note. Perhaps this is a sign you should create an account? But seriously, thanks for your work and I'm sorry that some over-zealous admins are making this more difficult than it should be. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All fixed up now. Jenks24 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple more but I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel! This section has been seriously neglected for several years. -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All done, except you might want to take a look at my comment at Talk:List of dialling codes in Northern Ireland. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the UK page needs to move in order to fit the naming all the other similar pages use. -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done :) Jenks24 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Two more: Category:Telephone numbers in New Zealand and Category:Telephone numbers in Australia should be listed in Category:Telephone numbers by country. -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find any other orphaned "dialling code of" pages? Typing "dialling code" into Wiki search then looking at 24 600 pages, 500 at a time doesn't seem like a particularly good idea. -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're trying to find articles with "dialling code of" in the title, that are orphaned? I honestly don't know how you could go about that, but I think that if you asked at WP:VPT someone may be able to help you. I'm fairly sure that it could be done using the toolserver, but that's way beyond my technical competence. If you don't have any joy at the VPT, MZMcBride (talk · contribs) might be able to help you out. Jenks24 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily that exact title, perhaps "area codes in X" and similar as well. Maybe "orphaned" isn't the right term either. Perhaps I need to think what the question actually is, before asking it over at the suggested places; but basically find pages with lists of area codes but which are not yet listed in the "by country" list. :) Thanks! -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Yes, don't use "orphaned" because Wikipedia:Orphan means something different. Other than that, I think the VPT will be able to help you once you've fully figured out the question. Jenks24 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the gnome work on Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands. I would have given you water (the most useful drink of all) but I figured beer is more fun. And water wasn't in the choices :) — CharlieEchoTango — 07:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And beer is more fun :) By the way, that's a nice article – I'd never heard of the book before but it was interesting read. Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Australian Football League premiers

I actually agree with the previous post that GWS should be listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Australian_Football_League_premiers&diff=454019880&oldid=454018151 Ray-Rays 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. The reason I feel GWS should not be included is because, as I'm sure you know, it is impossible for them to have won a premiership or played in a Grand Final – they haven't even played an AFL match! Everyone reading that page would think "of course they haven't won a flag". Also, I'm pretty sure we only added the Suns at the end of this season. Happy to discuss it further if you want, though. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Two issues concerning here, Firstly if your saying four teams haven't won the Grand-final then it applies that 13 teams have when in fact only 12 have. Anyway to something we can surely agree on is in the same section just after how many teams have won the grand final in previous years is incorrect because the reference is from 2003 and is outdated. Anyway that something I change but I leave it for a little to I got the time to change it and research who actually won in previous years as I'm only a casual Football watcher with is weird for a Melbourne person, also I leave it for a week or so in case you wanna fix it yourself. Ray-Rays 23:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

I don't believe that saying only four teams have not made a Grand Final implies that 14 have (it's an 18-team comp next year) – it's simply saying that four teams haven't played in one. To say GWS haven't played in a Grand Final is as pointless as saying that the University haven't played in a Grand Final since 1990 – of course they haven't because they haven't played an AFL season. As to the reference, I believe it's fine because, from what I can see, it's actually only sourcing "compared to only five clubs winning the previous 23 premierships", which is a statement that hasn't changed since 2003. To your researching who won in previous years, you are free to do so, but I assure you that the list of premiers is correct (I was at the most of the games), but if you want to verify that yourself, check out the references sections in 2011 AFL Grand Final, 2010 AFL Grand Final, etc. P.S. please sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~, which will produce your username and the time. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another beer for you

Thanks for fixing my error, Jenks. Old age creeping up. Tony (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, mate. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you like beer....

....how about a nice Leffe? Thanks for this edit in Talk:Wallonia-Brussels Federation. Asavaa (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a nice Belgian beer :) And no problem about that small tweak. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I removed my request at Requested moves following your suggestion that a better redirect is possible. I just wanted to inform you so you won't think it impolite that I removed your comment along with mine because I think the issue is resolved. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and it was fine that you removed my comment. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTD RFC

I have opened an RfC related to an issue on which you recently commented: Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Note to self: comment there when you get the chance. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Jenks24. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've made a comment there and I'll watch the discussion with interest. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jenks24/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

08:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

FIngers crossed - third time lucky...

Just nominated 2010 Nobel Peace Prize again. Could you help me with this problem, please? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! And I've fixed all the dead links. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How can this still be a redlink?

Amazing. I would have thought he'd have written his own page by now! The-Pope (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It's been on my to-do list for ages (along with a tonne of other things...). Hopefully I'll get around to it one day. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the peer review on Freddie Mitchell. I really appreciate it, and I'll work on your suggestions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: I found this interview with Mitchell's baseball teammate, Chase Utley, and he says that Mitchell "chose the right sport in football, that's for sure. He was a good batting practice hitter—that's about it. He wasn't quite the same once the game got going." Do you think I can use this to address Mitchell's decision to pick football over baseball? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me. When I read the early life and college sections originally, I was thinking "was he better at football or was he equally good at both sports and just preferred baseball?" That interview clears that up well. Jenks24 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the comment by Utley would be best in the College career section. Do you agree? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because a) Utley was his college teammate and b) it could be used to expand the small paragraph on baseball in that section. Jenks24 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

my apologies

I apologize for merely having reverted Megan Fairchild, but the previous editor is running a script and lacks the good manners or common sense to clean up after himself — and I've grown tired — and perhaps a bit cranky — at having to clean up after him — or her, but it's a fair bet that script kiddies are boys. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance

Jenks,

I saw that you moved the page now titled Paraguayan War. As I have noted in the article's talk page (Talk:Paraguayan War), the premise provided was erroneous (false). Google page hits are actually four times (4x) greater for "War of the Triple Alliance" than "Paraguayan War". The term "Paraguayan War" is mainly used in Brazil to refer to this conflict...whereas the term "War of the Triple Alliance" is prefered in most other countries. As such, assuming that the person which suggested the move did it in good faith, I really think that this mistake should be promptly fixed (return the page back to "War of the Triple Alliance"). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal. I did move the article because that's what the consensus of the discussion resulted in. If you feel that consensus was based on incorrect statistics, then you need to start another requested move discussion. When closing the discussion, I did not check the links that Lecen provided because no-one had refuted them in the discussion. Looking at them now, though, I think you would have a strong case. I'd also add that if you do start a new RM, it would be better to reference google books and google scholar hits, rather than normal google, because they are more likely to give reliable sources in their results (it's also recommended at WP:COMMONNAME). Hope that helps, but I'm happy to answer anymore questions you might have. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Message regarding the Skin (Rihanna song) deletion debate

Hello. This is a generic message that I am sending to all of the Wikipedia contributors who have aired their views on this deletion debate. Since you last contributed your perspective, the article has been significantly expanded. You may wish to change, alter or expand your argument in light of these developments at the discussion page. Thanks. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. Still sticking with my original call, unfortunately. Jenks24 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Equid

Hey. To further complicate things, The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers says 21 September 1926. I'd go with the AFL website[1] which goes with 1923 (scroll down to "player profiles"). Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Comes free with the HTML4 manual! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by April 23, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my blanking of the redirect page for C. A. Patrides. I move pages a few times a year.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As an FYI, you could have moved the page originally. If a redirect only has one edit in its history and that one edit is creating a redirect that points at the article you want to move over it, then any user can perform the move (see WP:MOR if my explanation of that is unclear). Ironically, once you blanked the redirect it was no longer possible for a non-admin to move it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayden Head

Hello, I was to inform you by phone but your contact number was unavailable. This is regarding the page of Jayden Head. I am head of Jayden's management and we are furious that you are saying that Jayden's goals and achievements are 'fake'. This is disrespectful for Jayden and for the football clubs he has played for. If this page cannot be verified as being 'true' we will have to pursue this further. We want many people to see Jayden's story of coming from a small town and working extremely hard to achieve greatness but we do not want to see this as being fake and Jayden being humilated. So please either fix this page with many references to make this page worthy of what it should be or contact me personally and we will sort something out.

Regards, Scott Matherson, PFA Licensed Player Agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaYDawG 74 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Scott, unfortunately the way Wikipedia works is that the burden is on you to verify (by using reliable sources) these claims that you are making about Jayden. I can honestly say that I've tried to and been unable to. Also, the main reason Jayden is not notable is because he hasn't played in the A-League – if you can verify that he has we will be happy to keep the article, but at the moment it appears he is a good up-and-coming player who is not yet notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. Hope you have a nice Melbourne Cup day, Jenks24 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayden Head has been signed to a notable football team in the Hyundai A-League and is also has been loaned to a team that has played in the Adelaide Super League so even though he has not played a game yet he still has been signed to these notable football teams. I believe also that Albury United S.C. is also a notable team in the Albury Wodonga Football Association and it cleary says he has recieved many votes for Star Player. I believe that yes this page must be fixed but not deleted and I am just asking for assistance in this as we don't want this page recieved as being 'fake' when it isn't so if we can have assistance in making this page true, it would be muchly apreciated. I sent the previous message that I sent to you to another Administrator and he has seen it as a threat. It is not a threat I am just asking for assistance in this page to be true. Thankyou for replying to my previous message. Regards, Scott Matherson, PFA Licensed Player Agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaYDawG 74 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid just playing for Albury is not enough to be notable – otherwise Wikipedia would have literally millions of articles on soccer/football players. As I said, years ago we decided our standard for Australian players would be the A-League and I'm afraid we can't change this just for Jayden's sake – it would be unfair to the thousands of other articles that have been deleted on players that play at a similar level to him. That said, i you can prove that Jayden has been signed by Adelaide United, that would go along way to the article being kept. The other way you could prove that Jayden is notable is by showing that he has had we describe as "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" – an example of this would be an article about Jayden in The Adelaide Advertiser or a similar big newspaper. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)