User talk:Jenks24/Archive 13

Daniel Niazi
Why do you delete a article about Daniel Niazi, when I`ve sources about this guy?

From Frank Robert, Wikipedia Fundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.68.124 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Whither went thou?
Hi Jenks - just seeing if all's well. It's been nearly 10 days since your last post, after you said you intended to be back on WP in 18 hours. Of course it's none of my beeswax, but just thought I'd check in. Dohn joe (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ned Sutton.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Ned Sutton.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
The redirect page at /w/index.php?title=0371&redirect=no  needs to be duplicated (identical) both at "0372" and at "0373". The suggested edit summary is 037_ redirects to Non-geographic telephone numbers in the United Kingdom. or similar. Thanks! -- 79.67.249.97 (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI heads up
Hi, I think this ANI discussion is supposed to be about you, I can't find a single diff to support the accusations but it looks like it's probably related to the American Dad seasons RM. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Was coming here to notify. I instructed the editor to come here calmly if he disagrees with your conclusions at the RM.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 19:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Portoholic (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reg Conole
Just curious to know where you found the date of birth for Reg Conole ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.208.190 (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary topics
Last March, when closing a move discussion at Talk:Erotica (Madonna album), you wrote: "The unwritten convention is that an article not at the primary topic needs a completely unambiguous disambiguator and, unsurprisingly, most of the RM "regulars" who have commented here have expressed that opinion." Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The same guideline issue was raised at VPP under the heading of partially disambiguated titles. You might be interested to read my closure there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

George Carlo
Hi. Would you be so kind as to move this article to my userspace or sandbox? He appears to me to be quite notable and I'd like to have a look at the article that was deleted. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ned Sutton.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Ned Sutton.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Baltazar (Hunnic ruler).
Why did you delete the page Baltazar? I didn't see your reason for deleting it. That's why I am wondering. I think you forgot to mention that in your reason for deletion of the page. Thanks in advance ---68.229.239.155 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPA for English. Since you had some involvement with the IPA for English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cathfolant (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of The_Big_Model
Can I get you to review this decision? The deletion discussion was obviously deluded and done by people with no knowledge of the matter. The Big Model is the reference for meta-discussions in roleplaying games, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who knows anything about roleplaying theory who is not familiar with it. It's to roleplaying theory what the Kopenhagen Model is to quantum theory. If the article needed clean-up or work, that is one thing, but removing the article does a major disservice to Wikipedia. Plus the article as I remember it was not a stub but actually well-written. Just because no roleplaying fan is monitoring the deletion talk page daily doesn't mean the subject matter is not important. There are probably several thousand pages on Wikipedia that are less noteable.

.Tom. (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:Latest stable software release/Invision Power Board
Hi please unprotect this Template:Latest stable software release/Invision Power Board page please. It is no longer being vandalised. 90.204.133.243 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Canvassing, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Happy adminship anniversary
I'd like to second that sentiment Glad to see you active here again, you've been missed. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. You've been missed! Dohn joe (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, hopefully I'll be back for a good long while this time. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Jenks. It's nice to see you around again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad to be back. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of conservation statuses
For your information, see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Conservation status. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Page moves
I had moved the years because there seems to be common agreement, had it few times, and recently on the talk page of admin Edgar.

Can you provide reason that why year is important to add on the title when more common title is available?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. In general you're correct that say "footballer" is preferred over "footballer born XXXX", but not when the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is already a footballer. You have to remember the point of disambiguation is to distinguish an article from other topics of the same title. So to use a few examples from our recent moves, Asif Ahmed is an article about a cricket so naming a new article Asif Ahmed (cricketer) doesn't help distinguish it, in fact it makes things more confusing as people might expect there are two articles on the same person or if they know there are two cricketers of that name, they'll simply have to guess which article they want – so we name it Asif Ahmed (cricketer, born 1942) so that it is completely unambiguous. For the Terry Board one, we have two footballers of the same name so naming either of them "Terry Board (footballer)" doesn't make anything clearer (or unambiguous is the term we generally use) and we need to use the year of birth to properly disambiguate them from each other. Terry Board should probably be a dismabiguation page and I'll change it into one at some point unless His Holiness beats me to it. Hope that makes sense, I'm a bit rusty. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is good that I had watchlisted each of them. I would've never knew, and I would've made more page moves. Consider notifying user next time. You've been active in moving pages for any subject? Or sports in particular.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you noticed and came to ask, I was going to get around to dropping you a note otherwise. And yeah, most of my admin time is spent at WP:RM. Jenks24 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * :=) What is your opinion about Athenais (daughter of Herodes Atticus), Atiq Ullah (Kashmiri muslim leader)?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Athenais article does look a bit awkward, but if you look at the dab page, we see Athenais (great-granddaughter of Herodes Atticus) which makes a lot of the obvious disambiguations (say "Roman noblewoman") unavailable. There may well be a simpler dab but I can't see one at first glance. If you do come up with some ideas it would probably be better to start a requested move discussion rather than moving immediately yourself.
 * Atiq Ullah (Kashmiri muslim leader) is an interesting one, I'd agree it could probably be made more concise somehow (either "Kasmiri" or "muslim" could be removed and it would still be unambiguous), but the guy who created it actually happens to be quite active at RM so probably had his reason for titling it that way. If you want to follow up on that one you'd probably be best to have a quick chat with him about why he titled it that way. Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jenks24, you're back from a very long break? Yes I recall there is another muslim leader whose name can also be spelled Atiq Ullah in Google Books, and mentioned in another article (I can't remember details right now) which made "Kashmiri" necessary.
 * BTW, now that you're back, I wonder if you are aware that thing against full fonts in foreigners' names thing has completely been resolved, I note this as you have apparently been absent for some time. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, not sure how long exactly but would have to be over a year. That makes sense about Atiq Ullah, I assumed there would be a good reason. I have been lurking occasionally so did notice that diacritics seem to have become less controversial – was there an RfC you could link me to? I always maintained that I would support moves to diacritics if a guideline got up in support of it (e.g. I support moves to comply with MOS:DASH even if they aren't necessarily the common name). Also, because I linked your username in the above post did that give you a notification? It's a new feature to me. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the feature worked. Talk:Dominik Halmoši is pretty representative. There's only 1 article which is still at an English name, which is the one you and two now banned editors voted to move. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In ictu, please don't misrepresent things. You know that there are still dozens if not hundreds (thousands? who knows?) of bios at non-diacritics titles. Otherwise, why do you keep moving pages? I've asked you many times before to avoid this kind of hyperbole - it does not help anything. And you also know that the overall issue is not settled. We just had a very long discussion with no outcome, other than people agreed that an overall RFC had never been held, and that it would be good to have one. Jenks - if you are at all interested in jumping back into the issue, I'd love some help designing a well-thought-out RFC. User:Peter coxhead also seemed to show some interest in doing so. Let me know. Dohn joe (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above Talk:Dominik Halmoši is pretty representative. There's only 1 article which is still at an English name - only 1 straightforward case at least. I trust I don't need to make a case for housekeeping badly sourced new stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, both of you. Interesting reading. Looks like despite the trend of RMs we still haven't managed to get a change to policy/guideline or a consensus from a RfC and so my opinion remains unchanged, though fear not IIO as I will keep my promise to refrain from closing any diacritics-related RMs. Dohn, I appreciate the offer but I think I'll have to decline at the moment – I just don't think I have the time. Best of luck with it, it's a discussion that needs to be had. Jenks24 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the Board pages for me, and welcome back. The-Pope (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, least I could do after going missing for so long. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I will need a lot of free time for that. I will just create a list. We may check someday.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to run it by me if you want. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

RC's Beach CSD
Thanks for this - I didn't know what to do about the old redirect. Making it point to the right target makes complete sense. Ivanvector (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. "RC'S Beach" (with that capital S) is a pretty unlikely search term but we may as well keep it seeing as redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Anon vandal
Thanks for taking care of that one. I usually don't bother seeking out getting vandals blocked but that one was particularly persistent. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Feel free to drop me a note if you see him/her come back after the two weeks or with a different IP. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent Moves
Hi, not sure I understand your actions here when you came a different conclusion here. Seems as no one was involved in either dicussion that they were both no consensus and should probably stay where they are? Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * During the Pakhtakor Tashkent discussion User:Intruder007 moved the article to a different title, so while they didn't bother to participate in the RM it is relatively easy to infer that they did not agree with the IP's new proposed title. In the FC Bunyodkor RM there was absolutely no disagreement and so the article was moved – this is standard practice at RM, especially so when it has been listed for two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing that page move. I wasn't sure how to do that properly. User:Aspects cleared it up for me on my Talk page. --Nabarry (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Close request
Since you seem to be an expert in this area, I ask that you snow close Talk:Przewalski%27s_horse; especially considering it has now degenerated into personal attack 'votes'. Dreadstar ☥   03:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's reasonable. And done. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Undoing cut and paste move.
I assume your recent reverts of a cut and paste move were in good faith. Although cut and paste moves are frowned upon, this move is to undo a double move that should not have occured (violation of WP:BRD. Unfortunately when a double move is performed a cut and paste is the only way of undoing the change.  If raised at WP:RM the admins can only undo the move this way.  Unfortunately, your reversion has actually broken an intended redirect because Northeast North America blackout of 2003 was not the intended location of the article but was intended as a redirect.  The original article title was arrived at by concensus and the move was against this concensus.  I B Wright (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste moves are never acceptable. I have restored the article to the status quo ante, Northeast blackout of 2003 – which is what would have happened if you had requested this at RM. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for that. You obviously have the ability that I do not.  I was unable to correctly move the article back because the first move left a redirect and move was reporting that the page name was in use.  But all sorted now.  Move protection is a good idea because it will prevent the original mover moving the article against consensus.


 * Apologies for the last reversion but I had not actually noticed that you had sorted it.  I B Wright (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries, glad we've come to an understanding. Unfortunately to move over a redirect that has multiple edits to it you need to delete the page, an action only admins can perform. And yes, hopefully a discussion about the article title will now go to RM to try and find a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to consider move protecting 2011 Southwest blackout as this is also subject to a similar unilateral move attempt. I B Wright (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll look into that in a few minutes. First I'm going to restore the 1965 blackout article to Northeast blackout of 1965 so don't worry if you see me reverting an edit or two of yours. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just about to 'fess up to that, but I already see that you spotted it. I B Wright (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done that. Had a look at 2011 Southwest and I don't think it requires any protection just yet (especially considering the other editor will have seen the other two articles get move protected), but I'll chuck it on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed but you seem to have been a little too enthusiastic. The original locations for both articles (before the move that started all this) was Northeast America blackout of 2003 and Northeast America blackout of 1965.  This was arrived at by consensus (see talk pages) and both articles were moved from the titles they now have.  I suspect this is because 'Northeast blackout of xxxx' is too vague as to where it could be on the planet.  I B Wright (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the article was at the title "Northeast blackout of 2003" from September 2011 (diff) until 16 June 2014 when Simply South moved it to "Northeast North America blackout of 2003" (diff). I've had a look at the talk page and there's no consensus for "Northeast America blackout of 2003" – DieSwartzPunkt argues for the original title (I assume he means "Northeast blackout of 2003"), TimL agree "Northeast North" is incorrect but does state what his preferred title is and Simply South prefers "Northeastern North America". Definitely not a consensus for any title. I agree the title it is now at might not be completely ideal, but it will do in the interim (after all it was the title for almost three years with no problem) while we go through an RM and find a consensus. Similar story with the 1965 article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that. It had got such a mess, the scope for confusion was always there. Yes - I just didn't look back far enough in the edit history. I B Wright (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:G.U.Y.
Please can you explain how you came to your decision in more detail? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Give me a few minutes and I'll add a rationale to my close. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Júlio César
I'm obviously involved here but I don't think there was consenus for the move you undertook following this discussion. Four people (myself included) opposed any move, and those who supported a move seemed to support a move to Júlio César Soares de Espíndola, so I am unsure where how you got the page to where you did. GiantSnowman 11:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, first about "(football goalkeeper, born 1979)" over "Soares de Espíndola" – there were four supporters (Jafeluv, In ictu oculi, 65.94.171.126 and Red Slash). IIO and Jafeluv come to a conclusion further down the discussion that "(football goalkeeper, born 1979)" would be preferable, Red Slash supports per IIO and the IP specifically chooses to support a rename but not a specific title. Mattythewhite also said he found "(football goalkeeper, born 1979)" preferable to the full name. I can't see any supporters who have expressed a final preference for "Soares de Espíndola". On to the actual moved vs not moved result, any references to COMMONNAME were discarded as irrelevant to the RM – the question was not what is the common name, but seeing as the common name ("Júlio César") is ambiguous, the question is how should we disambiguate? The other argument of the opposers was PRIMARYTOPIC, which was comprehensively refuted by IIO in his response to PeeJay. So although the number of votes were roughly split, the strength of argument in terms of policy/guideline by those in support was strong enough to mean there was a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair enough, thanks for explaining. GiantSnowman 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Split off 15 Éxitos into new dab
Talk:15 Éxitos (Alejandra Guzmán album). Only 1 editor in the discussion suggested this. I suggest that is not a mandate to implement it. Are you planning to break up the dab page into half a dozen different separate dabs for 10 15 20 25 30 Éxitos? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red Slash also agreed it should be a separate dab, so it was 2–1. Wish is obviously not a massive consensus but discussion had stalled and it was languishing in the backlog so I went with the majority. On your second question, not sure – we could create the separate dabs or just change Éxitos back to what it was before you added everything with "Éxitos" to the title to it. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're very welcome. And thanks for the barnstar! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you realize that your comment on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kind of thing people set desysoped for?
BMK (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why you relisted? When consensus was "oppose" and majority of votes.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jenks24: You've got 24 hours before I take this to AN/I. Consider your options. BMK (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @BMK, replied there. @OZ, WP:CONSENSUS is about the strength of arguments, not simply the numbers. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "when consensus..." I already submitted that consensus was clearly against the proposal. Please reconsider.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I must say I disagree with your opinion because I think the support voters were stronger in terms of policy/guideline than those in opposition. Though, with you saying I should have closed as not moved and BMK saying I should have closed as moved, this is reinforcing my decision to relist. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds better now. Good luck anyway!  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There are always two (or more) sides to every discussion, Jenks24, but it is not an admin's place to extend a discussion period to allow one of those sides to have more time to gather responses. You seem not to understand what the proper role of an admin is, so why don't you explain yourself at [AN/I], where I have filed a complaint about your actions? BMK (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also consider, Jenks24, the difference between a closer, who is required to determine the strength of arguments, and an admin who says "I'm going to allow one side of this debate more time to respond." BMK (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't avoiding this. I had to go have tea so my editing was interrupted for a an hour or so, but will take a look at the ANI thread now. I should add I am hardly infallible, I do get things wrong, and if that's the consensus at ANI I will reverse my action to the extent it's possible and take it on board for future RMs. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus at ANI backed you up on the relisting, with a few comments that said the relisting rationale was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. FWIW, I still disagree that there was a need to relist, definitely agree that your rationale was poorly expressed, but also admit that my response was an over-reaction, for which I apologize. BMK (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But thanks a lot for telling that you want to become the king of en.wiki, got me up again ;-)  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @BMK: thank you for the apology, I appreciate it. And I do understand your concerns and also the concerns of others at ANI who thought I expressed myself poorly. I will definitely take these opinions on board when making an action (be it close or relist) on any similar 'controversial' RMs – I certainly don't want get taken to ANI over a relist again! Best, Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was hot! Now, phew... --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't hesitate too much out of fear of mistake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of MJ Mohamed Iqbal Page
Can you please let me know the reason behind deletion of MJ Mohamed Iqbal Page? Iqbal is one of the well known Islamic Scholar as well as prominent Personality in Dubai. He had been written so many articles in so many titles, those were published in so many magazines and news papers. His "Science Miracle - அறிவியல் அதிசயம்" (Tamil Language) articles were published in Indian Tamil Leading News Paper Dina Thanthi' Supplementary "Ilaigar Malar" and those articles were combined as Book, it was released Tamil leading publisher "Poombuhar Pathippagam". Please refer the below links, Request you to kindly consider him for Wiki Page.

Nm.imthiyas (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * https://sites.google.com/site/mjmiqbal1/home/page2
 * http://books.lk/product.php?productid=42200
 * http://www.nannool.com/book-detail/science/ariviyal+athisayam/?prodId=6868


 * Hi Nm.imthiyas. I closed the discussion as delete because the consensus was that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Although I think you made a reasonable case, everyone else involved in the discussion felt that he isn't notable. Looking over it, I still think my decision was the correct one, however, you have made a stronger case here than you did at the AfD. My suggestion would be to take this to WP:DRV and say that you are presenting new evidence that you either didn't show in the AfD or wasn't properly assessed by other editors in the AfD (see #3 at WP:DRVPURPOSE) and you would like them to allow recreation. Please let me know if you need any help filing at DRV, I understand our process pages can be difficult to fully understand for newcomers. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This is just to let you know that I mentioned you at ANI, in the thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I hope you don't mind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I don't mind at all, Justlettersandnumbers. Just happy it wasn't an ANI with me as the subject (see above), two in one week would have been a record for me! Jenks24 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Enfer
Following your discussion comment at the latest Madonna RM (thank you!), I decided not to post this there as I fear that the nom may not find it funny, which would make it abusive. But what I first wrote there was...

Agree. Unstable equilibrium. That's of course unless we update the relevant policy. We could set a threshold of, say, six identical RMs, and an additional requirement of no consensus as to whether or not there is consensus. Then update the bot to add a new section below the RM Backlog, with a suitable section heading. Perhaps we could call the section Hell, following the superb insights of Huis Clos into what hell could really be like. Three equally comfortable armchairs, and three people fighting over which is the most comfortable. That guy could write.

Admins are of course not allowed to tell anybody to go to hell, and I don't think we should change that policy, but we could I think get the bot do it. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps you have to have seen the same RMs come through each and every year to get the humour. Probably better to have continued here, though I'm sure I'm not the only RM 'regular' to have got a laugh out of it.


 * The idea of just letting them drag on indefinitely while all prospective closers just ignore it is a beautiful one. And for some of the participants in said RMs, arguing forever about trivial things in this Hell might be what they actually want. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Error in Narvel Character: DeadPool page
"Ryan Renolyds" is Protrayed as Dead Pool in XMen Orgins film. Is False. Deadpool was indeed a different character in the film a.k.a Weapon XI.(s in 2009 film X-Men Origins: Wolverine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.95.120 (talk)


 * Err, OK. I'm not sure why you're contacting me or what you actually want me to do about it? Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hawaiian
I had looked at it before actually, but as it's outside the "simple" European fonts, and Hawaii isn't Hawaiian speaking, had stood back, but now if you're leaving it open I'd like to comment. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's mainly why I closed it, because it didn't seem like a 'normal' diacritics discussion and it certainly didn't seem similar to the type that made me promise not to close diacritics-related RMs. But better safe than sorry, so I've re-opened it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No it isn't (or wasn't) normal, but since the normal ones are no longer controversial I expect the odder ones - Hawaiian, Maori, the post-Soviet Central Asia latin fonts, are probably the only RMs we'll see. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed draft move discussions
You closed three move discussions that I started, suggesting that I try AFC or DRV. However, these are not new articles, nor am I disputing the original closes on the AFDs, so how do you propose I use either or those procedures? BOZ (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi BOZ. I'm sure AFC could help somehow, but I must admit I know very little about that project so I can't point you to an exact location. So I'd suggest trying WP:DRV. If you take a look at point 3 of WP:DRVPURPOSE you'll see "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" and that's how I'd suggest you should structure your argument. DRV is a much better place for an issue like this because it has a lot of regular editors who know our notability guidelines inside out, where RM obviously has editors who are more interested in the article naming policies and guidelines. I do apologise that it took so long for those RMs you started to be procedurally closed though, it was never my intention to jerk you around. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

SRK move
Thank you for moving SRK. There are a few loose ends that I am not sure how to fix. The Wikimedia Commons and Wikiquote links do not work now. Wikimedia Commons used to have a lot of pictures, but now I only see one on the new name and two when I try the old name. What happened? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

R from character template
You did a SWAP to accomplish a move, but left the old version in kind of a confusing place. Could you move (which contains the history) to  (which was the original name associated with this history). Thanks. --Netoholic @ 20:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Club music - Delete request
There's no source that "club music related to electronic dance music". Can you delete please? 183.171.170.116 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But Electronic dance music reads "Electronic dance music (also known as EDM, dance music, club music, or simply dance)" (emphasis mine). Seems like a plausible search term to me. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Requisation for Undelete 'Thomas Rathnam"
Hello Editor,

Please make a review "Tbomas Rathnam" wiki page.

Update few things and undo the delete.--Praisewinner (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Request declined. Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam (3rd nomination) came to a clear consensus that Thomas Rathnam does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. If you wish to appeal my closure you may take it to Deletion Review, but I will not be changing my decision. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pau riders
Requested moves are seven days. I changed the article title because there was a clear consensus to use the project guidelines and the OP said they were done discussing this. This is an article that is the proper name of organizations. The OP even started a discussion at the MOS subpage for Hawaiian related articles. I changed that article because the RFM was long over seven days. Its the 14th of July now and that original request was from June 22. I didn't move it myself until July 1 which was after nine days.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * RMs last a minimum of seven days and should be closed by someone who is uninvolved. Just because you and the OP had said all you had to say does not mean that there was a consensus. Also see the section above on this talk page, there is another editor interested in becoming part of the discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever is the norm is fine. The discussion is not the average diacritics discussion as noted above by In ictu oculi but you are now the second administrator to reverse themselves on this RM and now I am a tad concerned. I believe this may not be a legitimate request as the originating editor did admit he made the request without assuming good faith and made the request as a tactical maneuver to head me off after I objected to the article being moved the first time when the OP requested an admin make the move. I objected to that because the editor making the request had begun several different discussions pertaining to my work on several different venues simultaneously and I perceived the system was being gamed or that the editor was forum shopping by taking the same dispute to several locations to get the result they were looking for. I made the change to the article name because that was the main issue and there was a consensus to use the MOS sub page, where the OP made an effort to gain a consensus on this, but editors do agree that organizations should not have the diacritics added except to change the apostrophe. I did not close the discussion. Also.....I am actually beginning a list of articles that I and even the OP have noted are not using the Hawaiian orthography properly. I agree that the a partial use of the orthography should not be done except in cases where it is the proper name of a person, organization, etc., so there are a few more articles that need move requests.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"originating editor did admit he made the request without assuming good faith and made the request as a tactical maneuver to head me off after" – Hi User:Jenks24. I never admitted to this; you can read this in the discussion. I have no more comments about this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles Mark Miller said: "The version that stands right now has an apostrophe, I requested Fram move the article to simply Paʻu riders and that is when you objected. KAVEBEAR, you are the one that objected when I requested the move to Paʻu riders, using the 'okina. You then immediately began a move request using all but the title I had requested.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)" Which KAVEBEAR replied: "Yeah your right. I did that believing you wouldn't object and the title already existing as a commons category already."--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is also a moment where the reply left me was somewhat baffling as I have no idea how a commons category would have anything to do with a choice of the article title. What I was suggesting, they objected to - then made a move request and purposely didn't add the title I was suggesting as a way to manipulate the outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern about this with an admin action now being undone twice, but I assure you nothing improper has happened. Ideally RMs are resolved after a week, but we have a little of a backlog of RMs waiting for closure so it can take longer than we'd like for someone to get around to assessing the consensus and making a closure. The only reason I undid my close was because I made a promise several years ago not to close any RMs related to diacritics and I realised after making that close that I'd overstepped my bounds. Regarding KAVEBEAR's starting of the RM, it's important to note that WP:RM/CM states "Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines". So if you are used to other processes on Wikipedia I can understand why KAVEBEAR's nomination may have seemed improper, but for the purposes of RM it was acceptable. Of course this doesn't mean that we only choose between the nominator's proposal and the current title, but other options don't have to be presented as part of the nomination. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, That sounded very reasonable.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)