User talk:Jenks24/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Closing Myanmar (Burma) wording
I think we have a difference of opinion on what is fractured, and what isn't. First, you said there won't be a need for an "alternate proposal partway through the RM." That really isn't true. 2 hours after the RM started I placed the alternate proposal... only a single IP had responded thus far so everyone else had a chance to view both choices right from the getgo to make up their minds. Saying "partway through" makes it sound like it was added after much debate. Second, you said it "fractured this discussion." I 100% disagree and feel it helped this discussion because otherwise only one option would have been given as a take it or leave it choice. That is rarely a good idea. It should have originally been framed as an RfC that said Shall we we keep it at Project Burma (Myanmar), shall we change it to Project Myanmar (Burma) or shall we change it to Project Myanmar. That would have been by far the best discussion. We almost had that since 2 hours after the RM was created because I quickly added the alternate. I find it really helped the discussion by not forcing something to be pushed down editors throats without options, and saying it fractured the discussion right at the top of the closing seems a bit unfair. Other than that, thanks for looking at the rm as a whole and taking the time and effort to reach a tough conclusion. Most of the other article moves to Myanmar related topics have gone smoothly and without any incident. Only the actual project name was a stickler. The only closings I've ever done were pretty much snowballs so my hat's off to anyone who tackles the close tough debates. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck, I'm sorry if I sounded critical of the alternate proposal (and, by extension, you who made it), that was definitely not my intention. I completely agree with you that the discussion should have originally been framed as having three options. That it only had two to begin with, a third did need to be added. In hindsight, I would agree "partway" was the wrong choice of words – although technically correct, I probably would have been wiser to say something like "shortly after the RM began" because you're right that "partway" gives the wrong implication.
I still think it did fracture the discussion though, primarily because we ended up with some people only voting in one section, some voting in both and even a few people making contradictory votes. It also didn't seem to encourage much discussion, merely votes, which does generally make things a bit harder for a closer. I guess in general I also dislike the practice of splitting any RMs into support/oppose (in this case support/alternate support) sections, I think it makes things messier and harder to achieve a consensus.
That all said, I in no way think you made a poor decision to add an alternate proposal like that; I think you made the best of a poor situation, in fact. I do think we'll see, if there is a future RM, that having a more normal discussion with only two options and a single section for both supporters and opposers will result in a much clearer discussion.
Thanks for the kind words in closing, much appreciated. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Perhaps I should have used a different word instead of "fractured", but I can't think of one offhand (maybe "split"?) – it was definitely not meant to be critical of you or anyone else and I apologise if it came across that way. Jenks24 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. It was just that when I read the closing statement, it didn't sound like what really happened. And though I agree that it also didn't seem to encourage much discussion, only having the one choice imho would have encouraged even less discussion. At least it made people think there was an alternative rather than a take it or leave it supposition. I think Rfc's tend to have more actually give and take rather than an RM. More times than not when people see an rm it instantly splits into support and oppose votes with five word reasoning given to 75% of the responses. In the main article move rm I was in the keep at Burma camp 3 years ago, and while I was in the move to Myanmar camp this time, I didn't actually vote because I was the one who informed all the editors from the 2012 RM about the new 2015 rm and it felt a bit CoI for me. It wasn't like there was only going to be 3 voters where my opinion would have mattered. But in this project rm case, someone first simply moved the page to Project Myanmar saying it was uncontested and that seemed wrong to me, so I moved it back knowing it would be hotly contested if given the chance. Then the RM started (and it was hotly contested) and here we are. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm biased in my preference of RMs because I spend a fair bit of time closing/commenting on them, but I generally find them to be more on topic and with less meandering. Each to their own though, I can understand why others think RfCs provide a better discussion. To reiterate, although I'm sure you don't need me to, I think the third option needed to be added, it just had the unfortunately inevitable consequence of splitting the discussion, which I personally found a bit difficult to read and see if there was a consensus. Again though, I don't think there was any other way it could have been done after the nom only mentioned two potential titles.
(Off topic) Hope the US Open is a good one, after watching the Cinci final last week I'm slightly hopeful Fed can make it number 18! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm biased in my preference of RMs because I spend a fair bit of time closing/commenting on them, but I generally find them to be more on topic and with less meandering. Each to their own though, I can understand why others think RfCs provide a better discussion. To reiterate, although I'm sure you don't need me to, I think the third option needed to be added, it just had the unfortunately inevitable consequence of splitting the discussion, which I personally found a bit difficult to read and see if there was a consensus. Again though, I don't think there was any other way it could have been done after the nom only mentioned two potential titles.
- No problem. It was just that when I read the closing statement, it didn't sound like what really happened. And though I agree that it also didn't seem to encourage much discussion, only having the one choice imho would have encouraged even less discussion. At least it made people think there was an alternative rather than a take it or leave it supposition. I think Rfc's tend to have more actually give and take rather than an RM. More times than not when people see an rm it instantly splits into support and oppose votes with five word reasoning given to 75% of the responses. In the main article move rm I was in the keep at Burma camp 3 years ago, and while I was in the move to Myanmar camp this time, I didn't actually vote because I was the one who informed all the editors from the 2012 RM about the new 2015 rm and it felt a bit CoI for me. It wasn't like there was only going to be 3 voters where my opinion would have mattered. But in this project rm case, someone first simply moved the page to Project Myanmar saying it was uncontested and that seemed wrong to me, so I moved it back knowing it would be hotly contested if given the chance. Then the RM started (and it was hotly contested) and here we are. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :)
Thanks for grabbing those two pages I created by mistake, sorry for the extra workload ;) samtar (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You said "three votes"; do you mean "two votes" instead? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I was including the nominator. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Jenks24 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Move Review (Talk:Vithoba)
Hi, thanks for closing move discussion at Talk:Vithoba which I was started and it was really waiting since long time to close. But somehow I do not agree with your closing comments. Wikipedia:Move review says that I should discuss it with closer first at his/her talk page. You denied numerical majority, it was ok, because Wikipedia is not democracy, but your comment that "there is no consensus" was not good, there was consensus on the basis of majority. I can go on and on with debating with you but just to make it quick and simple, Vitthal is original and widely used term while Vithoba is derivative of Vitthal. "Ba" means "Father" and "Vithoba" means "Father Vitthal" which is just glorifying word by followers of that deity. We have all sources and logics, I am really not agree with your closure. Most of people who agreed to move were belongs to the region in which that temple situated. I know you are admin, and please don't make it issue of prestige, you can honestly think again on your closure, I can give you all sources and logics that you want. Please. --Human3015Send WikiLove 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration. It was definitely a difficult decision and, as you note, you and the other participants had been waiting for a long time. However, having just read over the discussion for another time, I stand by my decision, although I do grant you it was a close one. The question largely comes down to what is the common name in reliable sources. While you in particular made some very strong arguments in favour of the moves, outlining use of the proposed title in some eminent sources and showed some Google searches favoured it, the arguments in opposition were also strong – Imc demonstrated that ngrams favoured neither name, Redtigerxyz showed many eminent sources using the current title, and Kwami didn't specifically oppose but showed that there was not a clear preferences in sources for either title. All taken together, I did not think there was a strong enough argument for either name, so we default to the status quo title, which happens to be Vithoba. Note this does not mean I think the opposers comments were stronger or better than yours, simply that there were equally good arguments on either side of the debate and therefore there was no consensus either way. I'm happy to discuss this further with you if you want, but if you're dissatisfied with my response you may take it to a move review. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You can say that I'm frustrated but this is really not my personal frustration or my personal POV, being well aware about this topic I just requested move of this article. We do have sources for both claims. But I will still say that "Vithoba" is glorified name, there are many glorified names of this deity and "Vithoba" is one of them. You can even read "Etymology" section of current featured article Vithoba in which they themself talking about term Vitthal. Official name of temple is also "Vitthal temple". There is also a temple of this deity in Toronto named "Shri Vitthal Temple", see their official website. This is really original and well known name of this deity. The "holy verses" which praises this deity also has name "Vitthal" while praising this god. These verses are called as "Mantras". [1], [2]. I have already given many sources in discussion on talk page. This was really a valid move. --Human3015Send WikiLove 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply you were POV-pushing, I just meant I know what it's like to make what you feel is a good case for an article to be moved and then after a long wait it ends up not being moved. Sorry if that came across the wrong way originally. To address you additional concerns, as was noted in the RM, when deciding on article titles Wikipedia is not much concerned with whether names are glorified or the original, we are simply concerned with what is the common name. Yes, you have provided plenty of sources in favour of your argument, but those opposing also gave plenty of sources that were equally valid. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have any misunderstanding regarding your comment (regarding "POV") so don't think about it. Anyway, if your decision were based on Kwami and Redtigerxyz then let me make some points. On same basis that you said (denying numerical majority etc) Kwami once closed a move discussion against consensus Ellalan move discussion but it was later restored by another admin. Kwami came to comment on Talk:Vithoba after my request, even I invited Redtigerxyz for comment on that move discussion, while those who commented "move", none of them I invited to comment. Ok, now main point, we have sources for both claims, even you are accepting that "it is very close", then when it is so much close then at least I have "numerical majority" on my side in addition to claim that "it is an official name". You can't claim that "Vithoba" is "common name". Those who commented "Move" has not made their comment in much detail because I was already making big comments with all sources. We can't ignore their comments just because they are small comments. Few of them are very experienced Wikipedians, specially "Dharmadhyaksha", "Vin09", "Ogress" etc. Still I will say it doesn't matters who are the users but still you should have given favour for move on the basis of "numerical majority" and "official name", because even opposers can't claim that current name "Vithoba" is "common name". I think there was a consensus for move. --Human3015Send WikiLove 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- How Kwami and Redtigerxyz came to the discussion is largely irrelevant, I have assessed their comments on their merits. Likewise that Kwami has had a close overturned at a different page had no bearing on my evaluation of his arguments on this RM. I'm not claiming that "Vithoba" is the common name, what I'm saying is that the discussion showed no consensus about which title is the common name. And I haven't ignored the comments of the supporters you mention, but they carry less weight than those who gave clear, well-founded arguments backed by sources, such as you, Imc, Redtigerxyz and Kwami. So despite the numerical majority, the opposers have made equally good arguments and I am obligated to follow Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, which does not give any preference to the majority or the the official name when there is no consensus. I appreciate your concerns and I have mulled over this for a few hours now, in addition to my original decision, and I still think there was no consensus. It might be best now, if you still disagree with my decision, for you to officially file a move review (let me know if you need a hand with it). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Name of no other Hindu god is glorified one on Wikipedia though we can get sources for each, for example, Rama, Krishna, Brahma, Mahadeva etc, all of them are main Hindu gods and none of them have glorified name then why only one God should have glorified name? Vithoba is a glorified name and I have proved it multiple times. This god should also have normal name Vitthal. And I also claim that there is consensus for it in addition to sources. I thought it is just one of un-controversial move but I never thought that it will go so far. Article is having name Vithoba since a decade, it is one of ignored God because it is a local deity, someone of deity's follower made article "Vithoba" to praise this deity decade ago and it is ignored since then. Article has name "Vithoba" since a decade so it is most likely that some of sources may have been inspired from Wikipedia name of the article. Despite this we have numeruos reliable sources for original name "Vitthal". --Human3015Send WikiLove 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- How Kwami and Redtigerxyz came to the discussion is largely irrelevant, I have assessed their comments on their merits. Likewise that Kwami has had a close overturned at a different page had no bearing on my evaluation of his arguments on this RM. I'm not claiming that "Vithoba" is the common name, what I'm saying is that the discussion showed no consensus about which title is the common name. And I haven't ignored the comments of the supporters you mention, but they carry less weight than those who gave clear, well-founded arguments backed by sources, such as you, Imc, Redtigerxyz and Kwami. So despite the numerical majority, the opposers have made equally good arguments and I am obligated to follow Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, which does not give any preference to the majority or the the official name when there is no consensus. I appreciate your concerns and I have mulled over this for a few hours now, in addition to my original decision, and I still think there was no consensus. It might be best now, if you still disagree with my decision, for you to officially file a move review (let me know if you need a hand with it). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have any misunderstanding regarding your comment (regarding "POV") so don't think about it. Anyway, if your decision were based on Kwami and Redtigerxyz then let me make some points. On same basis that you said (denying numerical majority etc) Kwami once closed a move discussion against consensus Ellalan move discussion but it was later restored by another admin. Kwami came to comment on Talk:Vithoba after my request, even I invited Redtigerxyz for comment on that move discussion, while those who commented "move", none of them I invited to comment. Ok, now main point, we have sources for both claims, even you are accepting that "it is very close", then when it is so much close then at least I have "numerical majority" on my side in addition to claim that "it is an official name". You can't claim that "Vithoba" is "common name". Those who commented "Move" has not made their comment in much detail because I was already making big comments with all sources. We can't ignore their comments just because they are small comments. Few of them are very experienced Wikipedians, specially "Dharmadhyaksha", "Vin09", "Ogress" etc. Still I will say it doesn't matters who are the users but still you should have given favour for move on the basis of "numerical majority" and "official name", because even opposers can't claim that current name "Vithoba" is "common name". I think there was a consensus for move. --Human3015Send WikiLove 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply you were POV-pushing, I just meant I know what it's like to make what you feel is a good case for an article to be moved and then after a long wait it ends up not being moved. Sorry if that came across the wrong way originally. To address you additional concerns, as was noted in the RM, when deciding on article titles Wikipedia is not much concerned with whether names are glorified or the original, we are simply concerned with what is the common name. Yes, you have provided plenty of sources in favour of your argument, but those opposing also gave plenty of sources that were equally valid. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You can say that I'm frustrated but this is really not my personal frustration or my personal POV, being well aware about this topic I just requested move of this article. We do have sources for both claims. But I will still say that "Vithoba" is glorified name, there are many glorified names of this deity and "Vithoba" is one of them. You can even read "Etymology" section of current featured article Vithoba in which they themself talking about term Vitthal. Official name of temple is also "Vitthal temple". There is also a temple of this deity in Toronto named "Shri Vitthal Temple", see their official website. This is really original and well known name of this deity. The "holy verses" which praises this deity also has name "Vitthal" while praising this god. These verses are called as "Mantras". [1], [2]. I have already given many sources in discussion on talk page. This was really a valid move. --Human3015Send WikiLove 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I can go for Move review, but before that, after few hours whenever you will get time you can rethink over your closing comments again, because I don't think that "Move review" will help me much because you are an experienced admin and it is most likely that people will support your stand on this issue while on other hand I have not much good history as an editor, people will just call me "another POV pusher, still keep on insisting name of his choice". So I will not go for review for now, I hope you may change your decision (though there are not much positive signs). Thank you for your replies. --Human3015Send WikiLove 18:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have thought about this again, but I'm afraid to say I still think sticking by my original decision is the right call. The choice to take this to a move review is up to you, but please don't think that the editors who comment there will automatically side with my decision because I'm an admin. Every case is judged on its merits and the MRV 'regulars' are willing to call out an admin for a bad decision if they think he or she has made one. That is not to say I think my decision will overturned if you take it there, but your case will definitely be treated fairly should you decide to go through with it. Thanks for your patience and polite discussion here, I hope it hasn't put you off the RM process as a whole. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
VisualEditor
Hi Jenks,
I saw your discussion at VPPR with James F. From what the devs have heard, "getting used to VisualEditor" for most normal tasks (e.g., copyediting, making links, adding refs) takes only a few edits. It works like common word processing or e-mail programs, so most people have no trouble with the basics. It actually seems to takes longer to get used to having two edit buttons (one for VisualEditor and the other for the wikitext editor) than to using VisualEditor once you've got it open.
I encourage to you to opt-in and try it out for the next ten edits you make to articles, so you can see what I mean. Please leave your feedback about at WP:VEF, with as much detail as you would like. The devs and the Design team are always interested in learning more about the unique experiences that different individuals have. Also, I've been working on mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide with User:John Broughton, and feedback helps us understand what we should cover in more detail. We both watch WP:VEF, so we'll see your comments if you post anything there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I think I did try it a couple of years ago and was underwhelmed, but obviously it would have improved a lot since then. I'll have to take another look. I should add I'm not actually opposed to VE, but as someone who does sometimes take months long breaks from the project I generally dislike it when my preferences are fiddled with while I'm away – and I think most people feel this way, though I could be wrong. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Closure at Leo Frank
Hello. When you closed the discussion at Talk:Leo_Frank#Requested_move_29_August_2015, about half of the discussion was not highlighted. Any chance of a fix? Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Pluralizing "Americans"
The discussion was archived without a closing rationale. Shall we pluralize "Americans" already, or shall I start at Talk:Americans first and disregard that discussion? We got Talk:Korean Americans and Talk:African American conflicting each other. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Frustrating one. You did the right thing by starting a RfC at the village pump and no one there actually disagreed with pluralising, but at the same time there probably wasn't enough support to batch move hundreds(?) of articles. Probably better to be safe than sorry and start a new discussion at Talk:Americans. I imagine that if you (or anyone) just started moving articles now citing the VP discussion there would be plenty of complaints. Jenks24 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to remove this hook?
Per this. During the DYK nomination, it was suggested that I take his name out of the hook, and I agreed, going to the present wording. I received no indication at the time that that wouldn't have been enough, so I feel a little blindsided on this one. Especially since the user who reported it to DYK/ERRORS overdid himself in renaming the article to "Death of ...", something I've reverted and explained to him that "murder" is a legal finding by an investigative authority regardless of whether anyone is ever prosecuted or convicted of the crime, much less identified as a suspect (we have plenty of articles on unsolved murders that begin "Murder of ...", after all).
However, it was not necessary to remove the hook entirely. While I think the wording of BLPCRIME is flawed in that by saying that we should not say that "relatively unknown people" are accused of committing crimes we seem to fail to distinguish between "formally accused" (as in "arrested and charged by the proper authorities", which the young man in this case has been, in the latter case by two nations) and "informally accused" (by people on Internet comment threads, say), it says what it says, at least for now, and your talk page is not the place to change it.
We could nevertheless have kept the hook by rewording it to avoid all mention of a suspect, making it something like "... that the murder of Shao Tong one year ago today will be prosecuted in China although it occurred in Iowa?" Could you consider less drastic solutions like that in the future, please? Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, I'd just say I realise this must be an annoying situation for you to put serious work into the article to have it featured on the MP, only for it to be pulled when no one had objected in the weeks leading up to it. I appreciate your collegial tone here.
I did read the DYK nom and see it had already been altered to avoid mentioning the man's name, and that it had then been approved. I also checked WT:DYK to see if there was any discussion of it. But there didn't appear to be any further discussion of it and the hook was clearly in contravention on BLPCRIME. I had meant to leave the discussion for the hook up so that other ERRORS regulars could review my decision, but several minutes later it was removed as resolved by a regular DYK admin (diff) – I assumed that was an implicit endorsement of my decision, but in hindsight I should probably have restored the discussion for at least as long as that set of DYK hooks were up. I should also have notified you or left a note on the article talk page.
Your suggestion to consider altering the hook instead of removing it completely is a good one. I don't really know what to tell about why I didn't at least try this yesterday – perhaps I was too conscious of it being a BLP issue. Regardless, it's something that I should have thought of and I apologise that I didn't. It's definitely something I will take on board for the future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your wonderful reply. It is a breath of fresh air after one recently-concluded DYK discussion I've been involved in all summer. I especially like being praised for being collegial, since I preach that so much. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sirengate
If you would just have a look at the talk page, it appears that it has already been discussed. It stays as relevant and verified. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lol. If you hadn't pointed me to the talk page I wouldn't have even realised you were clearly Justa Punk/AFL-Cool. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Gi2C Group Ltd page deletion
Hi,
Could I ask which parts exactly you thought were advertorial for this page which you deleted: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gi2C_Group_Ltd.
As I don't see how the Gi2C page was any different than this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRCC_Asia
Thanks, Blackwhiteyellowred17 Blackwhiteyellowred17 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. After a bit of digging I found out what you were after. I deleted Gi2C Group Ltd. because it was a redirect to Gi2C Group, which is where the content was located. As you can see by clicking on that redlink, it has been deleted three times – each time because the reviewing administrator assessed it as being clear advertising/promotion and another time because it was felt the article didn't make a credible assertion of importance. Each page when nominated for deletion is judged on its merits, so the relative quality of other articles is largely irrelevant. If you want much more of a response, I'd suggest following up with one of the three admins listed in the deletion log for that page. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A WP:THANK in text mode
A quick thanks for this this. It was a great way to take the actually useful part (providing a detailed rationale with no-consensus closes), and tie it back to WP:POLICY and actual discussion-closing norms, from a suggestion that was floating off in 'I want to punish those who don't share my view that brevity is more important than accuracy' space. As someone pilloried frequently for not being as concise as some people would like, it's nice to see someone at a noticeboard not siding with the 'whoever compresses more wins' view (even if you're among those who think I'm too loquacious). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I really do appreciate the views I get at MRV, particularly from people uninvolved with the original discussion – it's almost the only forum where I get (largely) unbiased opinions on what I'm doing right and wrong as a closer, so I do try to take most things on board. If you were interested in becoming more of a 'regular' there, even if it was only dropping by once a month or so, we could use you. Your quick comment at the "Communist Party of Britain" has provided a useful point of discussion, for example. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Quique Sánchez Flores - Intro
Hi there from Portugal,
please keep this in mind, in the first part of the lead it should also be mentioned he coaches Watford, the bottom part is a SUMMARY of his coaching spells. I tried to help (as I imagine you do to), but I won't touch that intro with a ten-feet pole anymore, don't want any bad situations needlessly emerging, and I have already done a good bit (I would hope so) by sourcing all his honours so that they won't be removed. Your version is the one that current stands, I only made some itty-bitty adjustments now.
Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Obviously you've done good work on the article, I hope there were no hard feelings about the change I made – everyone's writing can do with some looking over and I say that from personal experience. I also don't condone the attacks the other IP was making on you. Regardless of the point he was trying to make the way he was communicating it wasn't OK. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes fellow user, all about teamwork. Best as well, --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Newsflash: if you check my talkpage (last message), the insults continue, don't know if this troll thinks I am User:MYS77 or just likes to get on people's cases. This IP, as the last one in Flores' article, has been blocked. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
ANI discussion involving you
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Complaint against administrator. Thank you.···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisting mystery
Hi Jenks24, can you see why my relists for Talk:Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Requested move 6 August 2015 and Talk:Shunga#Requested move 10 August 2015 didn't stick? Whatever bot handles that sort of thing seems to be temperamental. Do we actually know how it works? --BDD (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Relists now have to go at the end of the nomination string, I've fixed those you mentioned here [3] [4]. It's a pretty recent change, I think there was a note left about it at WT:RM or somesuch but can understand why plenty of people missed it. Thanks your recent closures at RM, much appreciated. It's probably the same for you at RfD where it can feel like the more you comment on discussions the more discussions end up sitting in the backlog for weeks. I peaked at your talk page by the way and agree that SMALLDETAILS is kind of a mess at the moment – hopefully one day there might be a consensus to clarify the wording there but I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sistrurus catenatus
Could you please take another look at the RM discussion at Talk:Sistrurus catenatus? The initial objection (which was the only objection) was from someone who clearly wasn't performing their search correctly and then never responded to the reply. The next comment was in favor. I don't see any actual significant controversy there. In my opinion, the lack of additional comments was an indication that there was a lack of disagreement and a general assumption (after many other similar RMs that were successful and uncontroversial, as you know since you closed most of them) that the move would take place. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thought this might be coming when I closed it. I don't really see the IP's comments as an endorsement of your exact proposed title and I can't really justify closing it as moved when there has been such limited participation and the opposer has made a not unreasonable case, even if your argument might be stronger. I'll undo it though, and see if a different closer has a different opinion on the consensus (or lack thereof). Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. In my view, the IP was saying they concurred with the idea that the alternative common names brought up in the original objection were not really common. They said they were familiar with the snake and with its environment (i.e., Michigan), and had never heard of the name "Michigan Point Rattlesnake", so it was not really a common name. So they were concurring that the suggested name (or at least something very close to it) was the common name. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"was"/"is"
Hello! Regarding this edit, it's possible that this is an English variety-related matter. The user who posted the error report appears to be in Germany. I assume that Australian English calls for "is", but "was" sounds more natural to my American ear. (I believe that this is because I'm inclined to associate the word's tense more with the action than with the person who performed it, so "is" seems to imply that the performance is ongoing, not merely that the actress is alive.) I don't know whether one variant is preferred in Indian English, but I'll note that Vensatry (the hook's author) is Indian.
This is a minor issue, of course, but it might be useful to consider for future reference. Thanks! —David Levy 06:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, David. I actually think the answer might be simpler than ENGVAR though. On reflection, I think I was actually might have been wrong to change it. Using "was" in that context didn't sound strange to my ear, but when I read the report at ERRORS I thought it must have been technically incorrect to use the past tense because she is alive and the fact is still true (i.e., she is and will remain the first Bollywood actress to play conjoined twins). But I've just asked an (Australian) English teacher and she agrees with your comment here that it's more natural to use the past tense in this case because the act is in the past. I did some quick Googling as well and couldn't find a clear answer, except to say that perhaps either "is" or "was" could be correct in a case like this (obviously if this is true, there was no benefit to my change).
In sum, this has confused me and, although I think it's an interesting thing to discuss, if I see a similar case at ERRORS I'm likely to pass the buck and let some other sucker admin deal with it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Parma
Hi, following your close of the Parma RM, you might want to have a look at this merge request which pre-dates the RM. GiantSnowman 16:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did take a look at that discussion before I closed the RM but didn't think I needed to close it because the consensus was so clear and merge discussions often aren't formally closed, at least in my experience. I should probably have mentioned that in my close of the RM, however. It has now been redirected (I did laugh at the edit summary) to the main article and, if there's anything worth merging, any editor do it by looking at the edit history and following WP:CWW. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirect 2015-16 Flordia Panthers season
Although I put that delete notice on that page, you are correct that such a typo ISN'T all that implausible. But let me explain what I was trying to accomplish and maybe we can work something out: I don't, in principle, oppose that redirect existing, because there is a correctly spelled redirect as well. (The redirects are necessary because the actual articles contain endashes between the years, which can't be easily typed in.) What I take issue with is the fact that when I begin to type that article title in the search bar, the automatic suggestion is the misspelled redirect, not the correctly spelled one.
It is a trivial detail, yes, but I have too much pride in Wikipedia for a typo to be showing up in the automatic search box! –RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 08:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Huh, that is interesting. It appears the same way for me in the search box with only the misspelled redirect appearing at first. I can't recall a case like this before. I've just deleted and undeleted it to see if that does anything. Maybe give it a month or two to see if it fixes itself over time. If it's still appearing like this in the search box then come back to me and I'll delete it? Open to other suggestions. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @RedSoxFan274: The search box now displays the correctly spelled redirect for me! How about you? Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Appears to have corrected itself on this end as well! Thanks for your help. –RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Mail call
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Move warring at Days of Our Lives characters
You closed the recent RM that restored the 'List of' prefix. Please see this removal of my notice by User:Cebr1979. This is now the third time in the month of September that Cebr1979 has performed the same move, taking out the 'List of'. In my opinion the title should be moved back and then move protected. Do you have an opinion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: Uhmm... That was fixed before you even wrote this message.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: ...and you definitely knew that before you posted this message because I told you it was fixed before I removed your notice.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: ...and you deliberately left out my responses to you when you came running over here. Pretty dramatic, Ed.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cebr1979, you deleted your responses. But thank you for moving the article back. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not possible for you to not have seen them prior to going to my talk page's edit history in order to link to the removal. That's a fact. You did know they were there and you did deliberately not link to them. This isn't a case of assuming any sort of faith, the fact is: you made a conscious decision to only tell a self-serving half-story. You're welcome, however, for moving the page back (which, again, it's just not possible for you to not have known that before coming here). Have a good day, this is the last I'll be talking to you about it.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you stand by your responses, I invite you to restore the entire thread to your talk page. When you constantly delete conversations, it suggests you don't care to negotiate with anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not possible for you to not have seen them prior to going to my talk page's edit history in order to link to the removal. That's a fact. You did know they were there and you did deliberately not link to them. This isn't a case of assuming any sort of faith, the fact is: you made a conscious decision to only tell a self-serving half-story. You're welcome, however, for moving the page back (which, again, it's just not possible for you to not have known that before coming here). Have a good day, this is the last I'll be talking to you about it.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cebr1979, you deleted your responses. But thank you for moving the article back. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: ...and you deliberately left out my responses to you when you came running over here. Pretty dramatic, Ed.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: ...and you definitely knew that before you posted this message because I told you it was fixed before I removed your notice.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as Cebr1979 has moved it back, I don't think I need to do anything. I will say though, that you (Cebr1979) need to understand the processes here on Wikipedia. Discussions like RMs are not simple vote counts, so even if more people had been in favour of your proposal that would not have justified moving it back. Wikipedia works on consensus and if you disagree with a decision that a closing, neutral admin makes, there are venues to appeal (e.g. WP:MRV for requested moves). Simply moving it back to your preferred title is never the way to go. That all said, I appreciate you reverting yourself in this situation. Jenks24 (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I have started the article. Please, check and advice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Seems a good start to me, certainly ready for mainspace. I'll hopefully be able to give it a full lookover at some point. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
cricket coaching staff
Hai
I'm sona i need to contact the incharge person of MRF PACE FOUNDATION kindly help me wanting for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.229.251 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. I'm afraid I have no idea how you should contact the person in charge of MRF Pace Foundation (at least, I assume that's what your message here is asking for help with). Perhaps try their website. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you be interested in writing a few summaries for WP:TFA?
Hi Jenks. I've been doing all the TFA summaries for 9 months now, but I've decided to start asking a few others to help with some of them. There are a few types of articles where I'm out of my depth (especially sports), and there's a lot that happens at ERRORS that I really ought to pay more attention to. You've got massive experience with sports articles and helping at ERRORS, and despite your disclaimer that you're not a copyeditor, you seem like one to me. Also, I notice a lot of intelligence and kindness in your talk archives when you're challenged on copyediting points. Would you be interested in handling some TFA summaries? - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Dank, this is probably one of the most flattering things someone has ever said about me on Wikipedia, but I think I'll have to decline your kind invitation. I simply think I'd be out of my depth. I've never written a FA and have only rarely commented at FAC, and whenever I do I'm generally blown away at the standard of writing. I don't rate my writing or copyediting enough to fiddle with or summarise what they've done. If you were ever in a real bind or there was a specific article you wanted me to look at, I might be able to help, but (to repeat myself) I'm not confident enough in my writing to do it on a consistent basis, sorry.
- On a related note, thank you so much for all the work you do at TFA. People like you who do so much day in, day out to have the best content on the main page are probably underappreciated by our community and don't get told enough how important what they do is. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I get the sense I'm more impressed by your writing instincts than you are, but thanks for the kind words, much appreciated. There are some projects on the horizon you might be interested in, a potential expansion of A-class, and some automation to help writers, I'll keep you on the list of people to notify as things happen if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Football at the Olympics
Let me repeat: WP:CONLIMITED prohibits a local discussion ignoring a larger consensus. Unless you can get consensus to overturn the present "Football at the Olympics" convention, this page must not be moved. I don't know much about the subject itself, so I don't know whether such a change would be good or not; it's just that taking one page away from the rest would be thoroughly confusing for people navigating around. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bharatiya29 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jenks. Could you please take a look and make a judgement on the current IP edits at List of Brownlow Medal winners. I'm at three reverts. Jevansen (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry I wasn't around for a bit there. Even though it seem like the IP might have stopped I've semi'd it for three days just in case. You were obviously in the right. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keith Semple
When you moved Keith Semple (musician), shouldn't you have also moved the talk page with it? kennethaw88 • talk 02:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. Hopefully one day the software will be improved to catch this, see phab:T12814. Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)