User talk:Jenks24/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Matthew Wade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Template talk:Tfd links.
Message added 13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are invited.....

As a recent contributor to List of Friends episodes you are invited to a discussion at Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes, which is discussing recent changes that involve replacement of transclusion with custom tables. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't look like a dispute I want to wade into. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some new info added to Talk:History of Champagne page move

Howdy Jenks! I was wondering if you would take an opportunity to review some of the info added to the page move discussion. Your reasoning for supporting the move was the OP's comprehensive nomination but some key points were brought up namely 1.) The article is about the history of the region as well as the wine 2.) Wines that are name after regions are commonly capitalized just like the region (like Barolo, etc) and 3.) There is quite a bit of standard, common use (especially among reliable sources dealing with wine) that use the capitalization of Champagne in reference to the wine and even the dictionary links that the OP included in his nom points this common capitalization use out. You don't have to review this info if you don't want to, but I thought it would be worthwhile to point out some new info to you since I've noticed that in other discussions you've participated in you tend to take a very even keel approach and weigh out all the info. I appreciate your time! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Agne. Yes, I'm always happy to take another look if more evidence is presented. I'll address your points (or express my agreement with them) at the talk page, if that's OK. By the way, it's a fantastic article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Oops been adding short description recently, bu the latest run was correcting a spelling mistake in an earlier run, I then forgot to change it back. Thanks for the heads up any way. Waacstats (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tmbox and requested move

Does the {{tmbox}} template seriously cause a requested move to re-list? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer in my edit summary. It was actually the note that you left after {{tmbox}} that caused the relist. RM bot just goes by the first timestamp it finds, that's why to relist a RM you leave a new timestamp inside or before the original nomination. Hope that clarifies things. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Victoria Summer League

I saw that you requested Baseball Victoria Summer League restored after it was previously deleted. Are there multiple independent sources of significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG?—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bagumba. Yeah, to be completely honest I'm not entirely sure. From my understanding it's the top level league in Victoria, which would probably give it a presumption of notability, but it has only been in existence since 2010. The league has quite a lot of coverage in Leader Community Newspapers, but I must admit I can't find much in Melbourne's two big papers, The Age and the Herald Sun, and many of the Leader articles are the type that would be dismissed at AfD as routine. I'm going to ask someone who knows a lot more than me about Victorian baseball, but if they can't find any sources either, then I'm probably going to turn it into a redirect to Baseball Victoria. Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish and Andy's Euro Gap Year

Thanks for the information on the Logie Awards in your comments. You provided an education for me, helping me get out of a USA-only point-of-view. It's going to take me a while to develop a worldwide view. In the US, the Peoples Choice Awards for popularity and Emmy Awards for merit] are completely separate. I will eventually learn. Thanks again, DocTree (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for taking an open-minded view about it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ames ships

Re your comments that the template doesn't navigate anything, at the moment, it only navigates two articles. How many working links would you say would be a minimum? Three, four, more? I could easily create a couple more ship articles and/or one on the builder, but doing so would be a bit pointy. Ames should be notable enough to sustain the article. All the ships they built should be too. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit arbitrary, but in general I would say three or four – in the case of Ames where the potential is to have 15 or 20 links then I would say it is fine to only have three bluelinks (though there are others at TfD who have a more strict opinion). I wouldn't think it POINT-y at all if you created an article or two to prove your point (non meant in the WP sense), and if you did I'd withdraw the TfD (though it looks like it will be kept anyway at this stage). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And I now see that you've already added some more bluelinks. I've withdrawn the TfD. Hope this hasn't been a bother for you. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not been a bother. I don't mind arguing my side when a good faith nomination is made. Thanks for the withdrawal. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 19 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved per consensus. I've edited the article a hood many times, but consensus is crystal clear. and an admin is required to perform the move (and RM is, per usual, backlogged). Courcelles 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Ana Ivanović → Ana Ivanovic — per all the sources on her page bottom... WTA, ITF, Fed Cup and even her own personal website, it is spelled Ivanovic. Her official facebook page is Ivanovic also. Shouldn't this page go where the English sources tell us? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to her facebook page for reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per Washington Post, USA Today, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and Live Tennis Guide. Kauffner (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Not one of the 36 references in the article use the diacritic. Jenks24 (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support WP:UE/WP:UCN/WP:RS (in English) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment Yes, move it to the common name, which is without diacritics. And the same should be done for Jankovic. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Fair enough, but I disagree that it is so clear cut. Will drop you a line if I do. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 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)

Hmmm. Not sure I have any books that cover the VFA, at least not in enough detail that Aziz would be mentioned. That said, will see what I can dig up this arvo. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Adminship

Congrats on the obvious result in a few hours. As I predicted, fairly drama free. If you have any new admin issues, want a second opinion on something, anything else, please do drop me a note.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still checking in every few hours sure that something will have gone wrong, but it does look like it's in the bag. Even my over-the-top comments at the recent ArbCom case only resulted in one oppose. I'll almost certainly take you up on your offer. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd need ~49 oppose votes in the next 4 hours to tank your RfA. I think you're pretty safe. Congrats.--v/r - TP 17:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Dennisthe2's talk page.
Message added 07:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 08:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Northeast blackout of 1965

Where are the "Reliable" sources in a related item: New York City blackout of 1977#Cultural references, for instance?

I'm trying to add something interesting and new, which is not known by many, (I didn't knew it until I saw this episode yesterday) but you seem to consider this a personal pet project. Well, be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.153.249 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you need to have independent reliable sources to add "in popular culture" information to articles. The reason is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random collection. While I appreciate that you were trying to add something you found interesting to the article, it might be best to think to yourself "is this the sort of information that I would expect to see in an encyclopedia?" If the answer is "no", then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place to share your information. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content and this xkcd comic may be an interesting read. Lastly, thank you for bringing New York City blackout of 1977#Cultural references to my attention, I have now removed everything that was not referenced from the article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Dennisthe2's talk page.
Message added 18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

+sysop

Hi Jenks24, I have closed your RFA as successful — you are now an administrator. Please consider the guidance at Wikipedia:New admin school, it'll keep you from ending up here. Good luck! WilliamH (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Now you can rename all those articles about mammals without assistance ;) Favonian (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I'm thinking I might just make keep making technical requests so you have to keep doing all the work! :) Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Psst, I know it's a shiny button but: .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your new tools! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, much appreciated. I'll try not to mess up too badly! Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Mijotoba's talk page.
Message added 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Muhurat (term)

Thanks! It was fast. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Empress Jingū

Hi, Jenks24. You forgot to move Talk:Empress Jingū when you moved Empress Jingū. I am not able to move the page, Please take care of this. Thanks in advance. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much for catching this. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your RFA

Hey Jenks24, just wanted to stop by and say congratulations on your successful nomination for adminship! Mr. Wikipediania ^Talk 23:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations! →Bmusician 02:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jenks24 (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I was really happy when I saw your RfA in my watchlist with the edit summary "Closing as successful"! I know you'll do a fine job as an admin (which is why I voted for you, of course).--yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 03:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Cheers, I appreciate the support. Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• congrats from the other side of the country. You breezing through has given me the silly idea that I might even consider the gaunlet run sometime soon too ... maybe! I guess we need something to take our minds off the footy results! The-Pope (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hah, thanks. If I can make it through I'm sure you would and there's probably a queue of people lining up to nominate you! At least the Dockers can still have a decent crack this season, I'm worrying whether my Dees will even beat GWS... Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the pass, you uniform has been issued! Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, love the shirt. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats. If you're anything like me and run a bunch of gadgets, you've now found yourself presented with a load of new stuff and you're panicking about blocking yourself or deleting the Main Page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hah, yep was a bit of a surprise to look at my watchlist and see "block" at every entry. And I've already tried to delete the main page (just to test Fuhghettaboutit's image in the section above, of course), but apparently even the admin superpowers can't get the job done. It really makes you wonder whether RfA was worth it – if you can't delete the main page what's the point of even being an admin? Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the developers must have got wise to that one. But watch out if you're used to tagging pages for CSD using Twinkle - if you don't adjust the setting it just deletes them once you have the bit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

History merging

Hi, thanks for history merging the Ted Whitten article, which I noticed because Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/03 is on my watchlist. However, when moving the page to the old title to do the history merge, you shouldn't suppress the redirect, in case users are searching for the title while the history merge is taking place; creating red links like that also unnecessarily adds to the job queue. More importantly, don't add redirect revisions to the page history of the article; just leave them at the old title and restore them when the history merge is complete. I've done this to Whitten's article. By the way, congrats on getting admninship! Graham87 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When history merging, there's no need to move the talk page, either. I've also copyedit your talk header; hope you don't mind. Graham87 02:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Graham, just saw this on my watchlist and realised I must have messed up something. Thanks for all the tips, much appreciated, and if you see me screw anything else up please feel free to give me a clip around the ears. Cheers for the copyedit, as well. Jenks24 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just did another one, having taken on board your instructions. Would you mind taking a look at Mettā and Metta to see if it all looks good? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There were only a couple of relatively minor problems with that one. Firstly, if the redirect contains a redirect tag, remember to restore it; the best way is to move the page without a redirect then restore all the redirect revisions; I've rolled back your redirect edit at Metta. Secondly, in that case, the talk page should have been history merged, which I've done. It's a good idea to deal with the talk page if needed after dealing with the article. Your work has also reminded me to finally restore the revert link in the move page box, so you can now use it if you like. Graham87 03:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, will do those two things in future. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Another question

Yes, you're allowed (and in fact encouraged) to selectively delete the redirect revision. Graham87 06:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

24

Oops, my omission. Congrats on making it through to adminship. Tony (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You iz admin? ... cool. :-) Chedzilla (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Nice alt account, btw. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Job well done. Now it's time for a Vegemite sandwich. Will all Australian Rules players be getting primary topic status? Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. And of course they will, anyone who votes otherwise is clearly wrong and their votes can safely be discounted ;) Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I heard that maniacal laugh, you know. I noticed you're from Melbourne. I just RM'ed ACDC Lane, Melbourne for primary. Kauffner (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can just revdelete these posts if someone becomes suspicious! It's late here, but I'll take a look at that RM in the morning. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to vote or close it or anything like that. I just thought you might find the RM amusing. Kauffner (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anton

Congrats on adminship BTW. I just checked on Anton. Seems to be one of the few municipalities which doesn't have any villages aside from the main town..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Huh, that's odd; do you think it's still worth having a navbox then? Jenks24 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no, but it would be odd to have one for every municipality and not Anton. I'd imagiune there's probably more buildings which could have articles..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, well I don't feel too strongly about it, so I'll leave it up to you. If you reckon it should be deleted, I'm happy to take it to TfD for you, but if you think it should be kept that's fine too as I see your point that it could be built on in the future. Jenks24 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for COTS Demo Flight 3

An article that you have been involved in editing, COTS Demo Flight 3, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Abebenjoe (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Jenks24 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2011

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2011, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

diff used

I used this diff [1] about one of your edits here. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding deletion of "Shanti Carson" page.

Hello and good health to you,

The deletion log indicates you as the admin responsible for the deletion of the "Shanti Carson" page (actress, producer, street artist) for the reason of "fails WP:ENT" on today, 2012-05-31.

I do not concur with your discrimination or production criteria for at least this matter; indeed, you may deem the time and effort of merely issuing this feedback (my first one) as a counter- indication, for making a "non-trivial" effort to find some information -- on exactly the very day that you presume she is "not notable" enough.

I'm sure there is enough harddrive space....

I'll get the page from another source; the real worry is that I guess there is no understanding given to decisions for speedy deletion....

I'd like to ask if you would kindly undelete the page? (as an admin, I'm sure that you know the process).

153.18.24.181 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)brian_hiles@rocketmail.com

Hi Brian. The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, which means that an editor, not me, tagged the page for deletion and the tag remained in place for a week without anyone objecting. Once the tag had been in place for a week, it may deleted by any administrator, which in this case was me. As it says at the guideline that I just linked to above, if anyone asks for recreation it will be undeleted automatically, which is what I've just done. You can now see the article at Shanti Carson. I should warn you, however, that the article may still be taken to Articles for Deletion and if the result there is to delete it's pretty final. The best way to avoid that would be to demonstrate that the article has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has now been listed for possible deletion on AfD. Those interested should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanti Carson. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to relisting comment on requested move of K26LV-D to KNPN-LD

• Here is a major reliable source: this link to the FCC's TV Query about the station, the RabbitEars database also shows the callsign changes, although it hasn't exactly caught up to the FCC records (compare this database entry from RB, listed under "Historical, Ownership, Transition, and Translator Data" with the official FCC callsign records). TVtonightOKC (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding these to the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Could you give your opinion on this? Swifty*^talk 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Swifty. I'm trying to avoid slam dunk RMs at the moment so that I can close them, but if the votes start evening out, then I'll probably make a comment. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)