User talk:Jenks24/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Draft:Valerian (film)

Hello there! Will you please help me by HISTMERGing of Draft:Valerian (film) into Valérian and the City of a Thousand Planets — I'll be thankful. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but a histmerge is not possible in this case because there are parallel histories. Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
But I don't see dates overlapping in this case. If it's not possible then move the draft to mainspace to the target Valérian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Remove edits which are overlapping. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The draft has edits from May 2015 to January 2016, the article has content edits from August 2015 to October 2015, hence the overlap. Any histmerge would make an absolute mess of the history, cutting back and forth from your draft to the article space page that was later redirected. Theoretically I could move your draft over the top of the edits currently at Valérian and the City of a Thousand Planets, but for what purpose? There is no need to for attribution, you can just paste your draft in because you are the only contributor to it. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I just want my editing history to be shown in the article. Will you please just move draft's history from May 12-August 23, 2015 and then only January 5, 2016 edits? It would show some of the history of draft but it would be enough, and then January 5's edits will put in the new content when you move it. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That would also break the history because it would give a false impression of what actually happened. Why is it so important your editing history displace the entire history already there? You get the same 'credit' if you just paste your draft in. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah sure, got it. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And looking at it now, that's why I declined. The history is a mess. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Irish English"

This article, Hiberno-English, was moved as "uncontroversial" to Irish English by Anthony Appleyard on 2 October 2015. This change was not uncontroversial, and indeed had previously been rejected in an RM. Now, some editors are contesting this "uncontroversial" move on the talk page, but Anthony will not revert his move, and has instead started an RM, which is highly inappropriate, and gaming the system. As you offered to clean-up this type of mess on Mr Appleyard's talk page, perhaps you could revert the bold move so that a proper RM can take place. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit in Government Medical College, Malappuram

Your recent edit to revert back the name is based on an unofficial weebly site which is not the official government site. The official site which has information about the college is http://cee.kerala.gov.in/collegelist/main/viewdetails.php?college=TUxQ this and its stated there that the information is provided by the college itself. Kindly change it back. Thank you.117.203.41.214 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article was recently moved to the current title based on the requested move at Talk:Government Medical College, Manjeri. If you wish to have the page moved back to the old title, please start a new requested move discussion at that talk page. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move – please let me know if you need any help with it. Sorry if that sounds overly bureaucratic. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Labor-Progressive Party

The Parliament of Canada website has corrected the spelling of the party name so it's now Labor-Progressive Party. The article name Labour Progressive Party is therefore incorrect. See this entry for example. Please see new move proposal. Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I'll let it run the full week but it looks like it will be moved after that. Jenks24 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User from Italy?

82.51.122.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.53.179.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked by disruptive editing on Chris Brown articles. I've noticed similar disruptive edits which are by the user Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs). IPs and the user are from Italy which is given on WP:ANI posted by Binksternet. 123.136.107.136 (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm being contacted, this genre-warring stuff is not something I usually deal with and not something I've done recently. @Drmies and Binksternet: any idea what's going on here? It's in relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandals of pages music. Jenks24 (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jenks24, the pepole that say that i'm connected to the IPs from Italy are two vandals that i've reported, and after they've been blocked, so there is no reason to believe in them, me and the IPs have only two pages where we edit in common, so please stop saying that i am connected with those vandals--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a vandal, yet I've said I think you are the same person who has been editing logged out from the Ravenna–Rimini area of Italy. I came to that conclusion because of strong similarities in style. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Jenks--odd stuff; my comment in the ANI thread was because of these edits. I was wondering if this was good hand/bad hand stuff; honestly I don't know and I don't really care. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, well if Giubbotto non ortodosso was using the IPs as "bad hands" at least that seems to have stopped after the ANI blocks of the IPs, so unless problems persist I don't think any further action is necessary. If they do, report to ANI or perhaps a checkuser (wait, is Drmies a CU now?) might be able to connect the IPs with an account (of course they won't confirm that publicly, but they'll dish out blocks if they're being used disruptively). And what connection does the IP who began this thread have to do with everything? Anyway, I still have no idea why this was brought to my talk page, this is way outside my areas of interest. Jenks24 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, I am! Isn't that cool? More power! Drmies (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I voted for you, surely that means I get a free CU from you on any of my enemies. You can probably oversight all their edits too while you're at it. I'll send further instructions through email so the great unwashed have no idea what we're up to. Roll Tide, Jenks24 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Feyli people

If you don't like the brackets, remove them. Don't revert to what is arguably a POV name unless the discussion has found that it's appropriate. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Just last week a RM was closed with no consensus to move to the title you have now twice tried to move to, see Talk:Feyli Kurds#Requested move 19 December 2015. I didn't think it was necessary to point this out the first time because surely before moving a page, especially on what is a possibly controversial topic, it would be common sense to at least skim over the talk page first. And if you don't have the permissions to move to the actual title you want, don't make ridiculous moves to titles that include "()" – that helps no one and it's not the first time you've done it and then expected passing admins to clean up your mess. Jenks24 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I should've seen the closed request. But as for cleaning up messes, that's what you're an admin for. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for my initial comment here, it was unnecessarily abrasive. But my point was that there are processes to get articles to the right title the first time (WP:RM/TR and WP:CSD#G6) and I think you are aware of them. Cases where it is so important to move that we can justify having "()" is the title for a few hours or days are very rare. I'm happy enough to clean up messes when they are made accidentally or unwittingly, but it gets frustrating when to do it from editors who are experienced enough to know the correct processes. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Excellent Judgement and Impeccable Taste
You certainly deserve this. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have started praising the Alabama football team years ago, I'd have a stack of these by now! Or was it the voting you thing? I should also have done that years ago. I note my name is embarrassingly absent from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies. Do you think anyone would mind if I tacked on a 206th support now? Jenks24 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather you revdel the two opposes and make me look even better! Drmies (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my criticism of the 2nd. You look pretty good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
All the cool kids got two opposes. Jenks24 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm...true...but...your two opposes were by real editors! And apparently you were wrong about yogurt! Haha, so much of what we've done looks silly in hindsight--but the things that others did look so much sillier. Drmies (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It's yoghurt, damn it! Congrats to your Crimson Tide today, I'm watching the replay at the moment (had work when it was on) and it seems like it was a great game. Not a bad few years to be an Alabama fan. And speaking of RfA, SmokeyJoe what are the chances we could talk you into running? Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I see I criticised your 2nd oppose too! And indeed, Move review has done wonders for the temperament of WP:RM. I'm afraid the community would have trouble with my low content creation. I've become kind of comfortable pontificating from the peanut gallery. Also, I am of the class of 2006, the year that provided the most editors who are now admins. The project needs new editors to become admins, not conversion of the last of the active old editors. Either that, or the project needs to find a new low admin-maintenance mode. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think RfA is slowly but surely becoming more tolerant of editors who are not "all-rounders" so to speak, especially so if they're long-term editors who have a good temperament. I honestly think you would be very likely to pass if you did run and you would be a great asset to the admin group, your comments at MRV/DRV always show a great grasp of consensus. Plus it's just handy to have the tools for various things. But I can understand your opinion. If you ever change your mind, I would be happy to nominate you (or we could coerce Drmies into it, he's much more popular than me and would bring in a lot more "per nom" votes). Jenks24 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Collingwood award templates

If your proposed deletion of Template:Harry Collier Trophy and Template:Joseph Wren Trophy does go through, would you do me the courtesy of re-adding the succession boxes for these awards back to the pages of the 54 players who received these awards? --SuperJew (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain (and sorry if it feels like we're picking on Collingwood a bit – the Brisbane templates, for example, are a bigger problem), but I don't actually think we should have succession boxes for non-notable awards. If there is a consensus to delete the navbox then surely that is a consensus not to have any links for that award at the footer of an article, especially considering succession boxes are largely just a relic from the days before navboxes. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The awards are notable enough to be mentioned on the player's page surely, and as they are annual awards I see no reason not to link to the previous and next recipient in someway. Navboxes are obviously much easier and less upkeep, and that is why they replaced succession boxes.
We're used to everyone picking on us always. We know it's because you're jealous :P --SuperJew (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, if we have succession boxes then they should be upgraded to navboxes. Except when there's a consensus not to have navboxes for certain awards because they aren't notable – then I think it would be sensible to have neither. I'll start a discussion at WT:AFL about this. If there is a consensus there that these awards should have succession boxes then I will add them to any player articles that are missing them (at a glance, it seems upwards of 80% of them already have succession boxes in addition to the navboxes). Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You probably have it on your watchlist, but if not see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#Succession boxes. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE)

Hello Jenks24. I seem to be the victim of expert edit warr-ers. I've been accused of COI. One of my faults has been to tinker with my own editing ad infinitum (I'm an academic and it's what we tend to do). But instead of hitting the 'Show preview' button after every tinker, I have always hit the 'Save page' button. It's a big mistake and the practice has attracted attention. This is just one of many things that I can mention, in response. Please could you advise me as to how long I have to respond on the CSE talk page with my case for the defence? Can the two editors who have made the COI accusation move the page as proposed? Or, do they have to wait for someone else to step in and do it? Will the proposed move happen automatically with or without my comments? The definition of the concept is now misleading, but the content dispute is holding up the editing process. Thank you very much. Kind regards Chemingway (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are talking about Talk:Corporate social entrepreneurship/Archives/2016#COIncidence?. Frankly, I think Grayfell makes reasonable points about the state of the article and, considering it looks like you have regularly referenced works you've written in the article, then it is likely you do have a conflict of interest. If you want to refute that you have a COI, you can make your case on the talk page or ask for a third party assessment at WP:COIN. Also, I don't think it's the actual number of your edits that has raised eyebrows, more that you appear to have written most of the content for the page (about 25k of the 30k from a quick glance at the history), which is generally problematic if someone has a COI because they are (through no fault of their own) unable to write about topics they are closely connected to with a neutral point of view.
I would advise responding to the concerns on the talk page as soon as you are able, however I don't think there needs to be any great rush. No one has suggested moving the page, although Grayfell has said perhaps it should be merged. I doubt any action on a merge will be taken unless more people join in the talk page discussion also advocating a merge (thus forming a "consensus") or a more formal proceeding is initiated, such as Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (a bit of a misnomer because it can also result in mergers, not just deletion), where you will be able to make your case and it will then closed by an experienced independent editor (much like Wikipedia:Requested moves, which I think you are somewhat familiar with). Hope that helps, feel free to ask any follow up questions – I know the jargon here can take a bit to wrap your head around. Jenks24 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jenks. I will take your advice. I am a subject specialist and Grayfell makes a number of rookie errors and confusion with social entrepreneurship. Notably the lead is now wrong: CSE is not about 'business ventures' but I am being prevented from editing due to WP:EW. Are you able to watch the CSE talk page, please? I will try and post a response and it would be good to have a neutral third party involved. Best, Chemingway (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to add the page to my watchlist and help if I can, but I should let you know that this is outside my area of expertise, both in the sense of the subject matter and in that I don't deal with questions regarding whether or not something is COI editing that often here on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do appreciate that, thank you very much indeed. It's more the pointers on where to go and what to do in Wikipedia. I have learned from this experience and can see that I have made errors myself. Response going up on CSE talk page, now, but I am unable to continue a sustained argument about content with a non-subject specialist. Cheers, Chemingway (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

technical move request.

Can you please tell me what was wrong with my request for a move of the Frank Byrne page? Sorry, this is my first move request. [1] Thanks. Uamaol (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Frank Byrne is a redirect, so it shouldn't be moved anywhere. I think what you want is for the disambiguation page, Frank Byrne (disambiguation), to be moved to Frank Byrne. Is that correct? Jenks24 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
What I would liek is for Frank Byrne to redirect to the disambig page and not what it is currently. Someone did it before and the logs say it was reverted and advises to make a formal request. Uamaol (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I think that making it the disambig page would most probably solve the problem. Uamaol (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done. We don't redirect from "Example" to "Example (disambiguation)" per WP:MALPLACED. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Windermere, Cumbria

This is now the second time I've seen you close a no consensus discussion as move, as per the move review instructions, I'm asking you to reconsider your decision, and revert the discussion close to no consensus as it should be. 11:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs)

Again, I would tell you that RMs (or indeed any consensus building process on Wikipedia) are not vote counts and just because the votes are roughly split you should not necessarily expect a no consensus outcome. The strength of the argument is much more significant than, in this case, the slight majority in favour of the move. There was a strong argument that, seeing as the primary topic (Windermere) is located in Cumbria the title of "Windermere, Cumbria" is ambiguous, i.e. a reader unfamiliar with our standard naming practices could easily expect "Windermere, Cumbria" to refer to the lake. This argument was not effectively countered. The contention that "Windermere, Cumbria" could not be confused with the lake was rebutted and the arguments from yourself and Ritchie, that there is a hatnote from Windermere they can click, missed the point of the discussion, which is that readers seeking the town should ideally get there first time. This was well explained by Nilfanion in their last reply to you. Additionally, the comments that the proposed title went against the naming conventions are not an argument against the move per se, it is simply an argument that a different type of disambiguation should be used. In any case, as was explained at the RM, none of standard practices for disambiguating townships laid out at WP:UKPLACE would resolve the ambiguity in this case and therefore a non-standard disambiguation was required.
By all means feel free to start a MRV, I find them interesting because outside of them I rarely see my closures assessed by independent parties. And of course, no one is infallible – even though I still think my decision in this case was the correct one, perhaps others will see it differently. But I'd suggest you stop with the bluster of "This is now the second time", etc. That might have some weight if the previous RM you mention had been overturned or in any way criticised at MRV, but ultimately you chose not to pursue it. (And the later discussions for all Manchester Metrolink stations vindicated my decision there.) Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Windermere, Cumbria (town)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Windermere, Cumbria (town). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jeni (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Summit League categories

Hello. Thank you for closing and moving the Summit League article. I have a question about the categories... How do I get those moved, too? I can't find a requested move template for categories and I don't want move them manually when I know there is a bot that will do it. Thanks, ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Corkythehornetfan. You can nominate them for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS under the C2D criterion. After waiting there for 48 hours (assuming no one objects during that time), a bot will process the renamings. Assuming you have Twinkle, you can use that to nominate all the relevant categories. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the help! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The move shenanigans continue!

The incorrect page moves/article creations have continued. Here's the first one in a few days (for talk page stalkers, see User talk:Philg88#Weird page moves, where this type of situation is explained in detail):

User: Laek Shiri - Draft:Judith H. Orloff moved to Thomas Pane, then the draft was restored to its pre-move condition.

I see that Jenks hasn't edited in a couple days, so if any other admin watching this space can help out with this (it involves a history merge and a possible CU/sock block), please go ahead. :) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Page histories fixed, account blocked. Thanks for your vigilance with this. I've also reopened the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00 to see if there are any more socks. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I just refreshed my watchlist, saw that you responded, and then saw that another one had happened 15 minutes earlier:
User: Sonia 96i - Draft:EYeka -> ClickitTicket
It could be a busy weekend... -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Love You Like a Love Song", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I invite you to discuss the move proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zhug/Skhug

Two questions 1. On Wikipedia policy: Regarding a decision a year ago to close discussion on skhug/zhug, what is Wikipedia's policy on popularity of spelling vs. pronunciation?

In the discussion, it seemed to me that no-one identified him/herself explicitly as an Arabic and/or Hebrew speaker. Both languages pronounce the opening consonant as an unvoiced sibilant (lingual-alveolar), whereas in most English writing, zh usually represents a bilateral bilateral voiced fricative. (Sorry to get so technical but I don't know any other way to define it.) Anyway, if some English didn't know the word and wanted to know a relatively-proper pronunciation, to start the word with a zh is misleading, and to have the main entry begin with this grapheme suggests that popularity outweighs precision - not, IMO, a good principle for a significant reference work.

2. The article refers to Yemenite folklore about the eating of tomatoes during a plague. I've done research on plagues in the region -- and, except for the modern period, can find no reference to plague having occurred after the arrival of tomatoes from the New World.

Now, the Black Death plague is variously documented as having been attributed to the Jews, and such a legend may have been altered, say, in the 18th or 19th century with the tomato anachronism. The question, then, is how to communicate this to the average Wikipedia reader? Would something like the following be acceptable? "Legends of this sort attributed the Black Plague to various Jewish communities in Europe and the Near East. Since the tomato was not introduced into the region until at least a century and a half after the Black Plague, it is reasonable to surmise that the appearance of the tomato in the story is a later accretion."

Kromholz (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kromholz. I'll answer your questions as best I can, but I should preface this by saying that this topic area is outside my area of expertise (or even interest to be perfectly honest). In answer to your first question, Wikipedia by-and-large prefers to use the most common name in reliable sources for the title regardless of pronunciation (which should ideally be explained in the article). You can see the full article titles policy at Wikipedia:Article titles and note there are plenty of other considerations that come into play, but pronunciation is not really one of them. Regarding your specific concern with the title of this article, I think if you can find if you can find any books, encyclopedias, journal articles, etc. written by scholars in this field who argue in favour of using "skhug" (or even just use that name instead of "zhug") then you could make a reasonable case that we should follow those sources as they are more reliable than, say, your run-of-the-mill newspaper article, which is generally considered an OK source for determining the common name. If there are no scholarly works on this topic, or if the scholarly works actually favour using "zhug" for whatever reason, then sometimes it is necessary to accept that sometimes Wikipedia is wrong – its intent is to reflect what the majority of reliable secondary sources do, and if they are wrong Wikipedia will be too.
Your second question is hopefully easier to answer. That whole section is unreferenced and as far as I can tell none of the sources used in the article verify it. As such, it could be completely removed (or any objectionable sentences could be removed) per WP:BURDEN – i.e., any editor wanting that information in the article must provide a reliable source to verify it. When there is no source there, for all we know some kid might just have made it up one day as a lark and it's stuck. So regarding your proposed addition, I'd say if you can find a source to back that, then sure, by all means add it and it sounds fine to me. But if that conjecture ("it is reasonable to surmise that the appearance of the tomato in the story is a later accretion") is simply your original research and not reflecting a reliable source, then it would not be OK to add.
I hope this has helped at least a little bit. Feel free to ask me any follow up questions. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Glitter Force

An editor has asked for a Move review of Glitter Force. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Smile Precure article move

I strongly disagree with moving Smile Pretty Cure! → Glitter Force without having garnered a consensus amongst Wikipedians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glitter_Force#Requested_move_23_December_2015

I also dispute that "Glitter Force" has become the most common name in English-language reliable sources

I'm considering opening up a Wikipedia:Move_review, but I'd like to hash out our differences here before going that route.

Rationale: The spirit and intent of Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions was not followed, because there was NO CONSENSUS as to the move, and Wikipedia policy states that if the original title has been around for a long time, you have to stick with the original title (in this case, "Smile Pretty Cure!").

--Joseph123454321 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around in time to reply to this before you took it to MRV, but to be fair you only gave me a few hours. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joe Wilson (Australian footballer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joe Wilson (Australian footballer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Wilson (Australian footballer)/GA1

This user seems inactive since a month. Any editors interested to help with this GA review? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dersim Massacre page move

I think this title move is troubling for both procedural and content reasons. Based on the advice given on the Move Review page I am raising the matter with you, the discussion closer, before requesting a move review.

The discussion was closed after only three days, and with only two editors having responded to the proposal. I think that the consultation period was inadequate because this is an obscure article that is likely to be little visited. I also think that the number of respondents and content of the arguments was inadequate, given that a proposal to change "rebellion" to "massacre" should have raised suspicions that there might be pov or undue weight issues to be explored.
There is no content in the article that mentions a singular "massacre", there is some content mentioning (somewhat vaguely) massacres, but almost all the content deals with the rebellion itself and the campaigns against it by the Turkish army. This is not that surprising, given that the present article is a result of a merger (an article titled "Dersim Massacre" (which was also formerly titled "Dersim Genocide" [2] with an AfD decision to merge it into "Dersim Rebellion") was merged into the existing "Dersim Rebellion" article with the title of the merged article remaining "Dersim Rebellion" [3]).
The article title should have remained "Dersim Rebellion" because the merge decision decided "Dersim Massacre" should be merged into "Dersim Rebellion". The merge decision and the AfD decision both indicate past opinions that there was not enough material to justify having a separate "Dersim Massacre" article. The title change usurps that merge decision (and the earlier AdD decision) in an unsatisfactory and illegitimate way - we do not have a recreated "Dersim Massacre" article because more content has been found to justify its renewed existance. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoethrutheminefield. I'd first off say you are free to request a move review if you want after reading my response here, but seeing as it's been over six months since the requested move was closed you could just start a new RM (providing you find my response unsatisfactory). Your call.
The discussion was actually closed after being listed for 11 days, 10 September 2015 (UTC) – 11:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC). RMs are generally only listed for 7 days, especially ones such as this where no one opposes, so 11 days is actually a fair bit longer than necessary.
The job of a closer is to evaluate the arguments made in the discussion. Using the most common name is one of our fundamental naming pillars and a reasonable argument, that was not objected to, was made that "Dersim massacre" is the more common title. NPOV or undue weight arguments would have been valid and I would have taken them into account if they had been made at the time, but they weren't. Regarding prior decisions to merge the content one way and not the other, consensus can change and the consensus at the merge discussion was that the two articles covered the same topic.
So, you basically have three options at this point. 1) take it to MRV, 2) start a new RM, 3) let it drop. Assuming 3 doesn't appeal to you, I'd suggest you go with option 2 if you're still keen to have it moved back to the old title. It is highly unlikely anyone at MRV would vote to overturn the decision because the RM was unanimous at the time of closing. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joe Wilson (Australian footballer)

The article Joe Wilson (Australian footballer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joe Wilson (Australian footballer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Special Barnstar
Hi Jenks - as an almost co-nominator of my recent RfA, and for also helping me with preparation to run, and providing helpful and accurate advice throughout the process. I look forward to working with you in adminship in the months and years to come! Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Cheers! It was a well deserved result after your many years of work here. I'm sure you'll be a great admin and glancing over your contribs I can see you're already an asset to the admin corps. Feel free to ask me if you ever have any questions about anything admin-y. Jenks24 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a questions

It's subjective, really. There are people (most of them) who do use a dash of some kind or the MW default -- before their signatures. There are also others who add a space and there's no rule preventing them from doing so (which makes your edit summary quite wrong). Is there any reason RM top automatically signed unlike AfD top because it should be consistent - because people like me are used to signing everything manually. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I know there are plenty of people who do use a dash of some kind, but adding it as a default doesn't make a lot of sense because they will then end up with two dashes. I sort of agree that it should be consistent about auto/non-auto signing (I know when I started using it it caught me out once or twice), but having done thousands(?) of RM closes since then I'm rather set in my ways and would prefer no change if only because I'm sure I'd forget it half the time. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem here. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Brunswick_metropolitan_area,_Georgia#Requested_move_29_March_2016

Hi there - thanks for the close here. I was wondering, though, why you went to the ", Georgia" version as opposed to the primarytopic version. It seemed to me that more participants were okay with the basename than the ", Georgia" version:

  • Dicklyon, myself, Cuchullain, Amakuru, Kennethaw88, and SmokeyJoe all expressed either a preference for the basename or expressly found it acceptable. Bubba73 preferred it at first, although it seems unclear what their final position was.
  • RGloucester and Zarcadia preferred the double comma version, and did not comment on the other alternatives.
  • Only SmokeyJoe, as far as I can tell, was asking for the ", Georgia" version - and even they found the basename acceptable as a second option.

That seems a fair consensus for a move to the basename. I'd appreciate a second look - thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. In my mind, I think I was initially counting supports that made no indication about whether the state was necessary as votes in favour of keeping the disambiguation. In hindsight, that doesn't seem particularly fair because even if we accept that as true (and that's a stretch) they don't have arguments to back it up (so to speak), and clearly the majority of people who did actually comment on the issue were in favour of not including "Georgia" and made a good case for it. I will alter my close. Jenks24 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugzy Malone

Please block the users vandalizing Bugzy Malone. 2602:306:3357:BA0:F46C:395E:1819:4744 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, hopefully that will stop the vandalism. Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The move shenanigans are back!

Heya Jenks and all admin talk page watchers! Another page creation by moved an unrelated page has happened (for watchers, see User talk:Jenks24/Archive 20#The move shenanigans continue! and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00/Archive):

DDWG (a disambiguation page - last edit before today was 10 March 2010) was moved to Deborah L. Kerr, and then turned into a redirect. Deborah L. Kerr has the edit history from DDWG.

-Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Glad to see you're still keeping an eye on this. I've also filed a new SPI to see if a CU finds anything else. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem/KOI

Can you check up on User:Valoem/KOI? It appears to be an unattributed copy of KOI-433.02 m that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please could you also check User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/List of billionaire divorces, which soars to be an unattributed copy of List of billionaire divorces, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of billionaire divorces. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done histmerges for both. Thanks for catching these, especially the one from 2006! Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about the attribution problem involving User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox? A number of articles such as Arusiak Grigorian, Anna Hairapetian, Aram Avagyan and others use it for attribution. Actually, those articles were created by me by copying content from these userspace drafts that were in turn created by User:Technical 13 as unattributed copy-pastes from the original sandbox. But I used the original sandbox for citing attribution. Whether or not a consensus existed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox (3rd nomination), the page's history should be undeleted. Can you do it yourself or should this go to DRV? Unfortunately, CambridgeBayWeather turned out to be a trigger-happy admin who did not bother to offer any explanation regarding the attribution problems. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I could just undelete it, but it's generally considered pretty poor form to do so without speaking to deleting admin first (especially in an area where I'm not a regular). I think unless you want to ask CambridgeBayWeather to reconsider their decision, you should probably start a DRV. Please ping me or leave a note here if you do so, because I completely agree with you that it needs to be undeleted. The obvious solution appears to be to restore it and then blank as suggested by Steverci and Rich at the MfD. Once the main sandbox is restored those userspace drafts also need dealing with, either by deletion or proper attribution. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24/Archive_20&oldid=1140491884"