User talk:Jafeluv/Archive/5

Blocked my ip
Why when I try to upload photos to Commons, he wrote to me?

You can contact 32X or another administrator (list) to contest the block. You cannot use the email this user feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences, has been confirmed, and you are not disallowed from using it while blocked.

Your current IP address is 89.221.48.142 and the block ID is #111101. Please include this in any queries! Blocked users can edit their own user talk page, unless specifically disallowed from doing so...... =(

Bortorix 15:09, 16 january 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.221.48.142 (talk)
 * Hi Bortorix, the block has now been modified and you should be able to edit while logged into your account. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an idle procedural question
Don't particularly care either way, WP:NOTBURO and all that, but just wondering... I noticed you marked the latest Mangoeater SPI as closed, but I don't see you listed at WP:SPI/C—I thought only clerks were allowed to close? Or are patrolling admins too? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yeah, only clerks can actually close cases, but you don't have to be a clerk to mark a case for closing. The actual archiving will be done by either a clerk or a checkuser once it's been marked for closing. There's some explanation about the procedure at WP:SPI/AI. Jafeluv (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Gotcha. Thanks. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cool, thanks! Glad to help. Jafeluv (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
I'll always be full of admiration for your jazz standards work. I just created "I See Your Face Before Me", and quite thought of you. Thanks again! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouraging words! Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature.
Requesting mediation on the subject of User:Launchballer's signature. I see you've had discussions with this user before, and since the user informed me that he had previous issues and my issue was never brought up then, I have decided to research this. I've so far found you have had issues there before, and would like you to help mediate this to make sure the user understands there is no "grandfathering" as it were of signatures. You may find the current discussion here. Thank you. — User:Technical 13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for changing the name of that breaker bar picture! Cheers Scientific29 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
Hello! This message is to inform you that WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono  (zootalk)   17:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What's Going On (disambiguation)
Can you move this to What's Going On? --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I intend to, after links have been fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice
While I've offered input into past SPI's, Sockpuppet investigations/MrLeeWiki was the first SPI I ever actually opened. Was I wrong to do so? Clearly the CheckUser feature has labelled three of the usernames as "technically indistinguishable". Could you please share your thoughts on what exactly distinguishes a sockpuppet from an alternative account? Thanks. Levdr1 lostpassword  / talk  21:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think opening the SPI was the right thing to do there. The case is still waiting for a decision on what needs to be done (if anything), I'm waiting if another admin or a clerk has an opinion on how to proceed there. A sockpuppet is simply an alternative account that's used abusively – there are some examples on the Sock puppetry page of both legitimate and illegitimate use of multiple accounts. Jafeluv (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I did review WP:SOCK before opening the SPI, but the first three usernames under investigation did not seem to match any of the "valid reasons" listed as legitimate. Regardless, I'll continue to be cautious when deciding whether or not to open a future SPI.  Thanks for the quick reply.  Levdr1 lostpassword  / talk  21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you blocked my friends as socks
Hi, it looks like you blocked my IRL frinds User:Bloomcity and User:Ojeffs as socks. While I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight socks, they are actually not socks, they just made accounts because of all the press about the Women American Novelists category. They copied a previous merge vote because they were newbs. Is there some sort of process for them to confirm or prove that they are not socks?

As a side note (and I'm not blaming you for this), the brusque manner in which they were declared socks was a huge turn-off to two individuals who could have become productive members of the Wikipedia community. Has the community considered a process for dealing with this in a more humane way? There are ways that their accounts could have been shut down explaining their situation (they were labeled by the CheckUser feature) and giving them instructions on what to do if they're not a sock. As it was, the message to them was a loud and clear, "we don't care what you think and we don't want you to participate." --Jmcdon10 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! If I understand the result correctly, Bloomcity and Ojeffs were editing from the same computer within about ten minutes. Not only that, but they edited the same page and even added a word-by-word, character-by-character identical message. From a technical and practical point of view that strongly suspects one person creating multiple accounts to influence the community discussion, although even if there were two different people who changed seats and typed in the same edit on the same computer, it doesn't really make much difference as the effect is completely the same. While our category discussions aren't votes and everyone's opinion is welcome, it's inappropriate to create multiple accounts in order to make it seem one's opinion has more support than it actually does. This applies whether it's one person or more making the comments (the latter case is sometimes called meatpuppetry). The short answer for your question is, that there's not really a way to prove innocence, just as there's not really a way to prove that my next edit or yours was made by the same physical person as the previous one. However, if your friends would like to continue contribute to Wikipedia and did not create the accounts for the sole purpose of commenting in the category discussion, they can add an unblock template on their talk page explaining the situation, and an uninvolved administrator will look at the situation and decide whether the block should be lifted. Hope this helps! Jafeluv (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For having closed Talk:Frédéric Fontang. In your view does RM consensus support removal of duplicate name " (or Frederic Fontang)[1]" ? All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! That part wasn't really discussed apart from your nomination statement, so you can't really say there's a strong consensus in either direction on that. The wording of the article's lead is usually not a part of move discussions, and when people "support" or "oppose" an RM it by default refers to the proposed rename. In any case no one presented any objection to the change in the lead, so it would probably be okay to go ahead with the proposed change and if anyone disagrees later, WP:BRD comes into effect. Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point that only HandsomeFellow specifically responded on the nomination statement contained "but more importantly delete double-barreled lead currently "Frédéric Fontang (or Frederic Fontang)[1 tennisworldusa.org] " as contrary to WP:OPENPARA examples", difficult, since the lead was the main reason for the RM actually (if it was just the name could have requested it as a technical move invoking WP:FRMOS) in the lack of a "edit lead request mechanism". In any case the article creator has removed following your close, but it has come straight back in a new variant, I'm reluctant to invoke WP:BRD because it looks like edit warring, so on reflection I have put in a new RM Stephane Sansoni to try and catch the new variant as well. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but changes to the lead are really outside the scope of the RM process and you shouldn't start an RM for the sole purpose of proposing changes unrelated to the article title. Proposing changes to the lead can of course be made separately on the talk page – the "edit lead request mechanism" is simply starting a section on the talk page explaining what you propose to change. Better yet would be starting a centralized discussion about spelling variants in article lead sections, instead of going through the exact same arguments on many obscure talk pages. Jafeluv (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in the case of a tennis BLP it can't claim to be the "sole purpose," perhaps in saying "main reason" above I overstated the case, since the history/reality is that a tech move for a tennis or indeed ice-hockey BLP would still be dubious, so best to go via RM mechanism that exists. And you're right about the second point too. Will let the new RM run now, but a centralized discussion is the next step. Thanks for reply. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Revert

 * See User talk:MartinezMD.

Yes, I reverted the edit seeing it as an unusual format addition that didn't seem to do anything. Am I overlooking something? MartinezMD (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Missed that format.MartinezMD (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm HMSSolent. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Materialscientist1, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 03:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Binta Brown
Why delete article Binta Brown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aln2133 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Aln2133, I deleted the Binta Brown article back in 2011 on request because we have a policy that biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source. According to the page history, you also seem to have requested deletion yourself? You put a delete tag on the page saying "living person and does not approve of the page". Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing "The Holocaust" to "Holocaust"
Hi Jafeluv: Please see the new discussions I have started at Talk:Holocaust. Feel free to add your comments over there before we go any further. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. Jafeluv (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you interpreted the consensus incorrectly, but the sample size and the location seems inappropriate, at best, given the significance of this article and its title. This is a decision that I believe should be made by the far broader Wikipedia community. The concerns raised by IZAK are legitimate and are indicative of the sentiments that removing "The" will entail. With your consent, I believe that this should be returned to the status quo ante and then addressed at Requested moves or reconsidered at Move review. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Alansohn. I have no objection to a more widely advertised RM or an RFC. Move review probably isn't the place since its purpose is only to determine whether the close was within policy, not to continue the article title discussion... I'd keep the article where it is for the duration of the discussion, though, since rightly or wrongly that's what the result of the latest RM was. Of course if the wider discussion results in no consensus for the rename, we can move it back at that point. Jafeluv (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jafeluv: Thanks for your calm considered responses. Please take a look at Talk:Holocaust where a considerable consensus has been building up to revert the article back to its former 12 year old name of The Holocaust. What do you suggest should be the next move? Do we need to take this to the next level or can we just get an admin to do the bidding of the "new" (it's actually the old long-standing WP:CONSENSUS) to keep The Holocaust and have Holocaust redirect there. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can relist the article at WP:RM and add a note that the stable title was The Holocaust, so that if there is no consensus the article should be moved back. We could use the existing "follow-up discussion" section since many people have already weighed in there. After a week an uninvolved user would then close the discussion per normal RM procedures. Does that sound good? Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jafeluv: Speaking for myself, and I suppose I can assume also for those who have agreed with me at Talk:Holocaust, your proposal sounds good. Your proposal should hopefully open up this discussion to a few more uninvolved community members who could weigh in as well. When you do make the move presumably you place some sort of notification at the current ongoing discussion page at Talk:Holocaust. Thanks again for all your calm efforts. IZAK (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jafeluv, thank you for taking the effort to re-list at. It seems to have already drawn in more users to comment. Best, IZAK (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Move reinstated?
Hi, should the move on Aaron Johnson (actor) for Aaron Johnson not be reinstated as per the requested move result which you closed on the talk page? Regards. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tanbir. Sounds reasonable, since it was moved after a RM and then reverted without discussion. I'll let the user who reverted the move know about it so they can start a new RM if they want. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's alright. At the time of my move, the actor's article was at Aaron Taylor-Johnson.  It seemed to me there was no actual primary topic at Aaron Johnson at the time, thus my moving the dab page up.  But if the actor continues to be best known by the current title and consensus is that he is the primary topic, I've no issue.  Thanks for the note, however.  Cheers! Resolute 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He does appear to be the primary topic for the name Aaron Johnson, however Aaron Taylor-Johnson may now be the common name for the the subject since his marriage to Sam Taylor-Wood. Anyone is free to put a RM to Aaron Taylor-Johnson should they agree. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

want to recreate category X3
I'm developing a template that will conditionally assign articles to categories and for that I'll need at least two categories I can use for testing at the same time. Category:X1 exists now. Category:X2 serves a different purpose (the testing of category redirects). So I wanted to set up Category:X3, but you deleted that years ago. I could create Category:X4, but I thought I'd see whether X3 can be made available for the purpose. I plan to format it much like X1, while adding to its lead that if more are needed for simultaneous use more can be created in consecutive order. Would it be acceptable to reuse X3? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! The X3 category was created for testing in 2010, and when it was no longer needed the author requested deletion. If you need the category for testing it's okay to simply recreate it. Jafeluv (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for your assistance
Hello. You recently closed a move request that suggested to move "On My Way (Charlie Brown song)" to "On My Way (song)", which you closed as "not moved". A request with the same suggestion was soon submitted again by the same user and was just closed as "moved". After follow-up discussion, the closing admin in that second move has suggested that you be asked to review the situation. Can you please take a look at the recent discussions at Talk:On My Way (song) and User talk:Tariqabjotu and provide your thoughts? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi BarrelProof. This kind of discussions are fun to close, because if you go one way people say you chose the popular vote over policy, and if you go the other way they say you casted a supervote and ignored consensus :) Both arguments actually have some merit. I guess you can never please everyone. As for the decision... Wikipedia is governed by consensus and we're encouraged to ignore rules if necessary to improve the encyclopedia, so if one position has overwhelming support it's often a good idea to simply go with that choice. If no one disagrees then well, silence is a form of consensus. However, evaluating consensus is not head-counting. We have guidelines to document wider community consensus, and although they're not set in stone they should not be ignored without good reason. If both positions have policy-based support it's best to go with whatever is supported by pre-existing guidelines.


 * What do the guidelines say? WP:PDAB is unclear whether it refers only to standalone articles or any articles which would be potential targets for the reader. WP:D itself makes it clear that disambiguation applies to "existing article[s] to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". I see Tariqabjotu offered an explanation on their talk page for their interpretation of the guideline, and it seems like a reasonable call although it can of course be argued whether a reader would expect to land in an album article with that search term.


 * Previous move discussions are not binding precedent and each RM is evaluated individually, but recent discussions do give some indication of how the wider community consensus is leaning in similar cases. The nomination was made really soon after the previous RM, but at least there was some new argument available in the new nomination and AFAIK we don't have strict rules at RM as to when a new discussion can be started. In fact I've at times encouraged people to renominate after a controversial RM call to get more opinions on the matter.


 * The claim that Tariqabjotu was not a neutral party is invalid in my opinion. Considering the amount of RMs we get per week, it would be unreasonable to require every new RM within the same topic area to be closed by a different person; we simply don't have the personpower (is that a word?) for that. I bet if you go through my move logs you can find examples of me closing other move requests relating to song name disambiguation as well. I think Tariqabjotu's close was well within limits of closer discretion, and most likely it would not be overturned at move review. But if you'd like you can of course post at MRV to see what other people think about the appropriateness of the close. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this is now at move review. --  tariq abjotu  15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Network on a chip
Thanks for the change. It's so much more natural, and it's common usage (even though not unanimous usage). Tony  (talk)  14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :) Jafeluv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The madness over at Karen Gillan and Arthur
Ahoy.

Re this mess with the vandal attacking the two articles. (Sockpuppet investigations/SmillanIsCanon). Do you think there's any other major pages that I should watch to catch them? If the 94 IP that they did most of their edits from (see first report) is correct then they edit in my timezone (Milton Keynes, England) and with my watchlist linked to my E-Mail I can nab and SPI them pretty quick. Plus it's less reverting for everyone else to do.

Have a good one. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 16:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm not aware of any problem articles apart from the obvious ones (Karen Gillan, Arthur Darvill, Billie Piper‎), but if a CU finds other accounts, their contribution history might reveal something further. Jafeluv (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive
I've got doubts about Mesilliac being a Rinpoche sock - it looks to me like Ottava Rima, as the edit that drew attention was on an article created by and much edited by OR. Mesilliac even claims in their unblock request to be the article's creator. Unless OR and Rinpoche are one and the same - which could be quite a nice can of worms.... Dennis Brown blocked Mesilliac in April, but he's a bit busy off wiki to be doing any digging. It's an old account (but little used), and would predate any bans. Then again, it could genuinely be what they also claim, their only account. I'd appreciate someone having a look. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with technical data on Ottava Rima and after reviewing CheckUser data on Mesilliac I an say that Ottava Rima and Mesilliac are ❌. Tiptoety  talk 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tiptoety :) Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of 1930s jazz standards know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on September 30, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/September 30, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 

1930s jazz standards are musical compositions written in the 1930s that have become widely known, performed and recorded by jazz artists as part of the genre's musical repertoire. These standards include original jazz compositions, as well as songs from Broadway musicals and independent popular songs that have been adopted and recoreded by jazz musicians. Some of the most popular standards were composed in the 1930s; these include "Summertime" by George and Ira Gershwin, "My Funny Valentine" by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart (pictured), "All the Things You Are" by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II, and the most recorded jazz standard of all time, "Body and Soul" by Johnny Green. Other significant contributors to the 1930s jazz standard repertoire were Duke Ellington, Hoagy Carmichael and Cole Porter.


 * Awesome. Thanks for the notification. Jafeluv (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Great to see this! Congrats! I intend doing some work on Finnish jazz this week, you might be interested..♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Cool, do let me know if I can be of use. I tend to be more active at fi.wp nowadays (at least mainspace-wise), but I'm certainly not abandoning this project either :P Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank me
Pistäskin thankaten minua jostain yksittäisestä muokkauksesta. Haluan nähdä miltä se näyttää, kun varmistelen suomennoksia transwait-wikissä. Kohtahan kiitos seisoo fi-wikissäkin, mutta on aina hauskempaa kun suomennokset eivät ole ihan päin vehlettiä. --Pxos (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

List of pre-1920 jazz standards
Hi, I added Clarinet Marmalade to your list but I've messed up the formatting, can you sort it out? Moten Swing (in particular), Shanghai Shuffle, Snake Rag and Bouncing with Bud are probably worth adding to your main lists too. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks, I fixed it to follow the formatting used on other entries on that page. (That said I'll probably need to change the format to use whole sentences at some point i.e. "X is a song composed by Y" instead of "X. Song composed by Y", just like in the 1920s and 1930s lists.) I'll add the other songs in the appropriate lists as well. I imagine there's a number of important tunes still missing and it wouldn't hurt to go through some new source to see what is still missing. My local library has a copy of Ted Gioia's 2012 jazz standard book which would probably work well as a reference, but I've been putting that off while trying to focus on my big project over at fi.wp... It's a good thing there's no deadline and all that :) Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think it could probably be formatted. Thanks anyway for all the work you did on here. Some interesting material I've been writing lately like 133rd Street, Pod's and Jerry's, Rubberlegs Williams, Southland (jazz venue), Pearl Theatre (Philadelphia) etc.. Sometime I really must create articles on periods of jazz history in more detail than the main article... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please unprotect the article Rey "PJ" Abellana
Hi, I noticed that your one of the administrators who deleted and protected the article Rey "PJ" Abellana. Could you please unprotect it? Mr. Abellana was a popular actor way back in the 1980s and the father of Carla Abellana. I have sources to back up that claim. There are articles in the Tagalog (tl:Rey "PJ" Abellana) and Kapampangan (pam:Rey Abellana) that were written about him. I can write the article once you unprotect it.

Here's the source of the article for Rey "PJ" Abellana that I wish to create:

Reynante Razon Abellana (born March 21, 1951) or better known as Rey "PJ" Abellana is a Filipino actor who is best known for his portrayal as PJ in the Philippine TV series Anna Liza in the 1980s. He married Rea Reyes, his co-star in Anna Liza. One of their children is Filipina actress Carla Abellana.

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Saw the request at BN, just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the tremendous amount of administrative work you've done over the years at RM and I'm sure plenty of other areas. Hope to see you still popping your head in occasionally. All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jenks24! I'll still be around every once in a while, just not very regularly. See you around :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings
Hope you're still dropping in occasionally...As the creator of the jazz standards lists, I'm intrigued to hear your thoughts on the neglected Great American Songbook article. A long post on the talk page has made me think of its restructuring, and how it is a term in constant usage, yet never defined. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)