User talk:Jenks24/Archive 15

Talk:I'm Not the Only One
I didn't notice that, according to history logs, the title originally had no disambiguation. You closed it as "no consensus" to re-adding the proposed disambiguator. However, why moving it back to what it was before? Three opposed re-adding it, and two support re-adding it. None of us were aware of the history, but I wonder if your closure was correct. --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Restoring the status quo ante when finding no consensus in an RM is standard practice. See Requested moves/Closing instructions which states "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." And not that it's particularly important, but your count is slightly off – it was three in favour and three in opposition. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading the quote, the article was created in July 2014. How does "long time" apply to this? Also, you were including the nominator's "vote", which I intentionally did not do. I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly eight to nine years (without intending to be an administrator). Probably I shouldn't compare this to your years of administration and of Wiki-activity. --George Ho (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's kind of my point, being so new the article clearly hasn't been stable at any title for a long time. So, following those instructions, we then move it "to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub", which was I'm Not the Only One. And a nominator's opinion counts for just as much as any other voter and should be included if we are going to do headcounts. Jenks24 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail
103.232.84.182 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tennis article discussion
Because you and others were instrumental in forming our current tennis guidelines on seasonal articles for special players, I though you might be interested in the re-visit being discussed at talk:projectTennis. Currently, because of input from that 2011 discussion, any singles player skilled enough to win a grand slam tournament is allowed continuous seasonal articles. No grand slam tournament win, no season article. A grand slam tournament win in 2012 allows seasonal articles in 2013 and 2014 whether or not more grand slam tournaments were won. I was against these articles, but even I have to admit it has worked reasonably well and there really haven't been all that many articles made. A recent deletion of the 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season has brought this to the forefront once again and we at Tennis Project are trying to decide if we leave things as they are or narrow the parameters in several different ways. We could use more input (whether your views have changed or not). I gave the old discussion link so you can see your original thoughts, but all those who gave their view before are being invited to discuss. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Structured Search
Hello Jenks24, I would like to restore my deleted page "Structured Search". Please advise on the steps I should follow. Thank you. Kandreyev (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Kandreyev. Because Structured Search was deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion it can only be undeleted if you get a consensus to overturn the result at deletion review. You then need to make a case there that it meets one (or more) of the five criteria to overturn at WP:DRVPURPOSE. Your best bet would probably be to go with #3, "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", and make a case for why you think it meets the general notability guideline because no one did that at the AfD discussion. Wikipedia's processes can seem pretty arcane so I hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

nonconstructive edits by anon IP
Hi, could you please deal with 2001:8003:441D:9701:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F? He has been time and again making nonconstructive edits to Nathan Buckley and refusing to discuss. Thanks --SuperJew (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd have protected the article earlier if I'd be online when the edit warring was going on, but as it is I've left the IP a note on their talk page and I'll keep an eye on it to see what happens tomorrow. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate. Might be an idea to protect it anyway, if you look at his contribs, he comes back to it every day or few. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

IOS jailbreaking
Hey Jenks, it looks like this article, recently subject of an RM you closed, has been moved without another RM, and the move has disrupted the talk pages and archives. As the closing admin, could you take a look at it?--Cúchullain t/ c 18:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for letting me know. Jenks24 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:I'm Not the Only One
I'm afraid the result was compromised by a Kauffner sock. Would you be willing to unclose and relist? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Who's the sock? Glanced at the user and talk pages and there didn't seem to be anything for any of the participants. Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner Clodhopper Deluxe, seems to have stuffed up about 6 RMs for various admins using the recent crop of socks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Might want to reopen Talk:My Love Story!! as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Waterloo Campaign
I noticed you had recently posted on the Waterloo Campaign. Some of us in the MilHist Project will be diving into work on the campaign and its related articles in preparation for the Bicentennial in June. Would you be interested in working on this? (Love the photo of the bird, btw!). auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Brennan page
Hi, Samantha Brennan here. I was just alerted to the fact that my wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samantha_Brennan, was taken down for not meeting notability standards for academics. I'm totally new to Wikipedia, just starting to learn how it works and I'm interested in learning how to get involved. I didn't write my page and I was interested in editing it but then went to look and saw it wasn't there.

In my own case, I don't know if any of this helps but I'm also Vice President of the Canadian Philosophical Association and President next year,

And co-editor and co-founder of Feminist Philosophy Quarterly,

And I've been features a few times on Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

And I've been on CBC Ideas,

I'm probably best known for my work on children's rights--see citations to my paper on children's rights --and my work on feminist ethics, again see.

External sources, see also

And Ms Magazine listed me as one of the top feminist fitness bloggers, though that's related to my blog

Cheers, Sam

SamJaneB (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Request has been copied to Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11 The-Pope (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:I Like It Like That
You closed Talk:Love You like a Love Song as "not moved". Why and how is the above discussion different from what you closed? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

==Talk:Tulluru== Talk:Tulluru page you closed discussion, I saw the of googls searches, Tullur gave 31,900 results. Tulluru gave 37,100 results. Thullur 42,700 results. Please see the new capital of AP being built in this region news. Google map results, mandal wise villages pg11, GUNTUR DISTRICT – AT A GLANCE, mandal information mandal no.10.--Vin09 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

==Move review for Tulluru== An editor has asked for a Move review of Tulluru. 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. Vin09 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Moves like Jagger copy-paste move
Hello. Can you please help clean up the copy-paste mess recently created on 18 October at Moves like Jagger and Moves Like Jagger? (Please also note Talk:Moves like Jagger, which I believe indicates that the article should be at Moves like Jagger unless a clear new consensus is established to indicate otherwise.) —BarrelProof (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that you're apparently taking a Wikibreak. I'll look for someone else to deal with it. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Restore article
Hello. Can you restore Constantinos Mintikkis? He is playing in a fully professional league, Cypriot First Division, as you can see in WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. . Xaris333 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Constantinos Mintikkis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Constantinos Mintikkis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Xaris333 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
The log indicates that you move-protected the article. At the talkpage I proposed to move the article to 2014 Gaza–Israel conflict and this proposal received no opposition. Kindly effectuate this move or remove the protection settings. Thanks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bit of a policy wonk... but, I'd suggest you start a new requested move for that title. I'm not keen on unilaterally moving an article that has previously been subject to some pretty acrimonious RMs, even for the type of straightforward move you suggest. Also, glancing at the talk page it does seem that there at least a couple of people who, if not completely opposed to that title, would still prefer further discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis
Re Man Haron Monis

Can someone so authorised please edit the second para to clarify that it is based solely on his own claims made to ABC radio.

This is very important as he claims his family were persecuted and he fled Iran, but given everything else we now know about him, these claims cannot be taken on face value.

Further, the para says he was a "refugee" but this is unsourced. The ABC radio report cited makes no such specific claim.

This unreferenced claim that he was a refugee could be very damaging to genuine refugees in the current political climate.

And correct the error "wew" to "were" later on the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondoig (talk • contribs)


 * Hi . I've had a crack at fixing these issues, please let me know if there's anything specific you think can be improved further. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Some people have questioned my creation of Murder of Kylie Maybury, so can you take a look at it? There's no doubting the notability - it made the front page at the time, even pushing Reagan's win over Mondale over to the side. I still feel uneasy about using the term "handbag" on its' own, since "handbag" by itself usually indicates the type used by adult women and little girl's handbags are smaller and have licensed themes such as Disney or Barbie. Paul Austin (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mustang/Archive 2
Jenks, back in July, when you closed this RM discussion advertised as "Mustang horse → Mustang (horse)", were you aware that the "alternate proposal" that was accepted was a sneaky/hidden primarytopic grab? That is, no intent to take over the title of the dab page was ever advertised at WP:RM (or at the other affected pages, for that matter). I tried to fix this with another RM at Talk:Mustang (disambiguation), but it closed as no consensus, which should have meant revert, I think, but that's not how it went. Several people there suggested that Move Review would have been a more appropriate venue for this. I think this will be a waste of time unless you will agree that the way that RM discussion was done was inappropriate and unfair, and that that unfairness was not noticed by you at the time. Let me know if you think that was the case. I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rats; I see you haven't edited in over a month. I hope all is well and you're sensibly retired or something.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Jenks, this is a Kauffner sock. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When template moves go awry
Special:Diff/666905186. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus. I was worried something like that might happen, but Anomie had commented on the discussion and not mentioned anything so I assumed it was OK... Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I might've fixed it with this. Let's wait and see. Alakzi (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All good? This Module stuff is beyond me. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all back to normal. Alakzi (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Alakzi: I don't know what you did, but could you be on hand to make a similar change if I move this template to Template:Edit fully-protected, just for consistency with Template:Edit semi-protected? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I should have noticed that we generally hyphenated there. Jenks24 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing RM discussions.
Hi Jenks. I see you just closed a RM discussion against my !vote! No worries at all. It was a pleasant surprise, I had noticed you have been away. I hope doing something enjoyable and worthwhile. Great to see you around again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Joe. Yes, I've finally got some spare time on my hands and it looked like RM could use an extra hand! Hope things are well with you. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RM for Northern Kurdish
Hello Jenks24. At Talk:Kurmanji Kurdish that you closed recently, there were 4 supporters for the move to "Northern Kurdish", vs only 1 opposer who was against it, and the consensus seemed very clear on it. Several good reasons were provided for the move, including WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME, since "northern Kurdish" is far more common than "Kurmanji Kurdish". This ngram was provided as proof. Although I also suggested an alternative title but I was also perfectly ok about the requested move. I think it wasn't reasonable to close the RM as "no consensus". I think the article should have been moved in line with the evidence provided, the !votes, and the consensus achieved. Khestwol (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Khestwol. I should have provided a rationale with my close there. I felt there was broad support for a move away from the current title, but there was no consensus for which of "Northern Kurdish" or "Northern Kurdish dialects" it should be moved to. It was somewhat complicated by those supporting adding "dialects" having (in my opinion) better arguments, but also most seemed willing to compromise with simply "Northern Kurdish" if necessary. While those supporting "Northern Kurdish" had generally poorer arguments, but wouldn't give their support to adding "dialects".
 * So although I don't think my close was unreasonable, on reflection it could have been better. And thinking about it more, there is the possibility that another admin would have closed it as "moved". Plus a close of "no consensus" just means we'll be back at RM in another few months anyway because the current title is fairly clearly inadequate. What I'll do is undo my close and leave it for another admin to decide on. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920
Could I ask that you review your closure of Talk:Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920. This was clearly a no consensus outcome. Thanks, Number   5  7  06:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just had a re-read of the discussion and my closure, and I stand by it. In short, I felt the arguments for the move were of much stronger weight than those against. I think my rationale was fairly thorough and straightforward – was there anything in particular you felt I missed or got wrong in my summary? I should also add, even though I'm sure you're aware, that if you still feel my decision is incorrect you take it to WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is your assertion that Czechoslovak is the "common name". We are not talking about the name of an object, event or person here (there is no formal name for an election – instead the article title is created using the formula of demonym + election type + year as per WP:NC-GAL), but rather the usage of an adjective in the English language. As a result, there is no reason to discount Ghits as a source in assessing which adjective is used more frequently by people writing in English to describe things related to Czechoslovakia. As pointed out by several contributors to the debate "akian" is used more frequently in normal English.
 * In addition, the proposer based their move rationale on the claim that "Czechoslovakian" was incorrect, which is simply untrue - the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary. I don't see how a manifestly false rationale can result in a move, particularly when there was a 50/50 split amongst those contributing to the debate. Number   5  7  07:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To begin with your last point, yes the proposer's initial rationale was incorrect and as a result I gave it little thought when closing. But the fact that an initial rationale is wrong does not mean that good arguments for the same title later on the discussion should be discounted. I probably should have mentioned this in my close.
 * I actually agree with you when you write the issue was about "assessing which adjective is used more frequently by people writing in English to describe things related to Czechoslovakia" and this is what I meant in my close when I wrote "The question is essentially a WP:COMMONNAME one – which of the two options is most used". The difference we have is that I think it's important to note that we only care about how it is written in reliable sources (common name is adamant about that and so are the naming criteria). Most Ghits in a general web search give sources that aren't reliable and it was because of this that I gave the Ghits statistics little weight (WP:UCN does mention this limitation and recommends against them for that reason). Ngrams and the British National Corpus, however, are formed of mostly reliable sources and that's why I felt the arguments using them as evidence were particularly strong. I did note in my close that I also thought the Guardian evidence was good, but not as strong the Ngrams and BNC results because there was only a small margin in favour of Czechoslovakian whereas the other two were much more significantly in favour of Czechoslovak and were also comprised of a much larger number of sources. The fact that the only encyclopedia referenced in the discussion used Czechoslovak was also significant.
 * I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your concerns and I have gone back over the RM several times now considering your point of view, but I still think my closure was the correct decision. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will take it to WP:MR. Number   5  7  08:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Jenks, would you consider reversing your close, and !voting instead? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The fact you and Number 57, both of whom I've seen around and always seem to have sensible opinions, think I could be (or am) in the wrong here is concerning to me. At the same time, I keep looking over the discussion and thinking I made a good, objective reading of the consensus. I genuinely don't think I've supervoted and, to be honest, if I was casting a !vote I would probably try and find some stats/sources that justify Czechoslovakian as that's what sounds more natural to my ear.
 * Sorry to potentially prolong things, but I don't plan on reversing my close at the moment. I'd really like to hear from more people if I'm honest; the fact you think it could be a supervote has got me thinking a lot about the wording of my closure. If nothing else it will at least be a good learning experience for me. Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor Number 57 are "wrong". The revert and !vote idea for me is a method of conflict avoidance.  I dislike seeing conflict, even cool academic conflict, between two people I respect.  "Supervote" is a word I read Number 57 as implying, and the notion of supervoting is one of the interesting Wikipedia-specific concepts I like to study.  To me, this one is too close to the "admin discretion" vs "supervote" line for me to call, and I am really interested to read what others think.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That it's even close to the line in your opinion is far from ideal. But I have thought about this some more today and I'm going to let the MRV play out. For whatever reason I can't shake the feeling I've made the right decision on this close. As a bit of an aside, I do agree 100% with your comment at MRV that "there is no 'right' or 'wrong' here" – it's simply trying to find which is best out of two very reasonable alternatives. Probably the sort of thing we spend too much time on Wikipedia quibbling over, especially at RM. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be spooked by me being spooked, I am spooked because Number 57 is. I have never seen either of you taking a wrong step with page renames.  Yes, you might approach the supervote line by relying on your own analysis.  On the other hand, Number 57 is not impartial; anyone having initiated or engaged in a debate will have their judgement influenced by previously committed positions.  Letting the MR play out is very reasonable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RM for Harun ar-Rashid
Hello Jenks24. At Talk:Harun_al-Rashid that you closed recently, a majority of the arguments presented by !voters were against the move (including MOSAR, and evidence for COMMONNAME presented via Google Books search by the opposers of the move). The reason you gave for the move, i.e. "no consensus, defaults to the previous stable title which is Harun al-Rashid" was not so good, because the article title had not been stable. In the last 13 months alone, 5 moves were made for the title of the article:, , , ,. So, there was not any stable title that we can revert that article to. Khestwol (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Khestwol. It has been stable. That's been the name of the article since at least 2003 with the moves to Harun ar-Rashid lasting less than a day before this RM was opened. Your Google Books argument was well and truly refuted in the RM by Walrasiad, I meant to note that in my close. Jenks24 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not happy that besides more !voters opposed, and disagreed with the nom, the article was still moved. Khestwol (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia decision-making operates on consensus not vote-counting. The strength of argument is of far more significance when closing a discussion than the numbers supporting or opposing each side.
 * I should add that if you wish my decision to be reviewed, you can follow the process at WP:MRV. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I might go for review, or (in a few months) a new move request. Thank you and cheers, Khestwol (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Close this technically messy move?
Please see Talk:Annuity (finance theory). Though you left comments in the discussion, it seems that you aren't involved and you should still be free to carry out the technical steps. I was going to close it myself but that would be silly, because I don't know enough about the histories to do the steps the way you outlined. It seems that everyone agrees that the main article should be at Annuity, so in my opinion you can close it, if you are willing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Ed. Yeah, I've been thinking about closing that discussion, obviously there's a clear consensus about which article is the primary topic. The only problem is there's a bit of disagreement about what to do with the old history at Annuity – I've suggested one option and then two other users have suggested two separate ideas. I'm happy not to go with my original suggestion, do you think it would be supervoting if I just closed it and said we're going with Ivanvector's suggestion of what to do with the history because, reading over the discussion again, it seems to make the most sense? Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Close of Mother (video game)
I disagree with your close of the Mother RM. Multiple editors noted that every mention of the new release still primarily refer to the game as Mother. This announcement was a week ago, so there has been no time for sources to call it anything else. To say that the opposers missed this point is erroneous—it was repeated ad nauseam. – czar   12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, you're right to an extent, reading back over it you and another editor did make specific points about what it's being called post-name change. But the bulk of the oppose arguments seemed to be about what it was called in the past. And I disagree with your comment that a week isn't long enough for a common name to change, for an extreme example see Caitlyn Jenner. Regardless, I think the result, which is essentially "it's not moving now and it would be a good idea to revisit it in a few months" is the correct one. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a week is categorically not long enough, but the point was that the new release's name did not become or try to become its common name in the span of the last week. I don't exactly think the "no consensus" part needs to change, but I would appreciate if your close rationale reflected our discussion. – czar   13:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'm not sure if I was just in a bad mood or something, but reading over my original close it was overly harsh. I've added a note to my close, hope it's OK. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I strongly disagree with closing the discussion way too early in the EarthBound Begginings Talkpage, it's just make it unfair to everyone in Wikipedia and plus, I think closing this serious discussion too early is really like taking away the supported user's freedom of speech. And also, I was going to give out an another reliable source that I found it yesterday about EarthBound Beggings to boost it up to give out more supports, but, can you might revert your edit in the EarthBound Beggingings talkpage and everyone can might have a fair way to help out to EarthBound Beggings?DigiPen92 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DigiPen92. RM discussions typically last for a week and this one actually went for eight days, so it's not as if I was closing the discussion early. It's my opinion, and still is having just had a re-read of the discussion, that leaving the discussion open longer would be extremely unlikely to result in a clear consensus, even if you had another source (or even several sources) to add. So I'm afraid I will leave the discussion closed. I want to make it clear that this doesn't mean the page can never be moved or that we can't discuss it again, just that it would be good to leave it for a few months before revisiting it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, but, it's just still seems pretty unfair and it's pretty pointless and it doesn't make any sense to just close it a day after someone made the latest comment to the topic for the talkpage (no offense though).DigiPen92 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had thought that leaving the discussion open any longer would have resulted in a consensus, I honestly would have done that. But it seemed to me there was a very clear split that extra time wouldn't have resolved. And although the last comment was a day before the close, the last support was five days before – if anything, leaving it open longer would have likely moved it more towards "consensus against moving" territory. Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Australian national soccer team
Change the Australian national soccer team back to australian national football team as that is its name according to fifa the world governing body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.96.36 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my decision to make, you need to take it to the talk page (Talk:Australia national soccer team) and get a consensus. Note that Wikipedia places little store in the official names of things and instead prefers to title articles in accordance with its most common name in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...
...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I hope that I may prove to be worthy of your trust. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for cleaning up the mess I created with my stupid talk page archives... sorry for the trouble it caused. At least I won't make that mistake again.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, it was no trouble. And it happens, the move feature probably isn't as friendly as it should be. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I tagged The Girl In The Crowd for speedy deletion because I find it unlikely that someone would capitalize "the" or "in" in the middle of a title? Is this an inaccurate perception? Compassionate727 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Compassionate727. In this case in particular it is common for some sources to capitalise the first letter of all words in a title, and as a result it is not unreasonable to think that someone searching (or writing an article) might capitalise. See also Category:Redirects from other capitalisations which has 400,000 members. Basically though, see WP:CHEAP – unless a redirect is blatantly wrong there's really no benefit in deleting it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  Australian football

Thank you for quality articles on players of Australian rules football such as J. B. Thompson, for navboxes (you said "probably too many templates" - I don't think so), for page moves and, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What a pleasant thing to see when I log in! That's very kind. Thank you, Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dank meme Comment
Hello. I can see where you're coming from. I was thinking about the fact that it was deleted before as R3 while the exact same thing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassionate727 (talk • contribs)
 * No worries. I could see where you were coming from as well (and also noticed another admin had deleted it as R3 in the past), it wasn't a bad nomination but on balance I didn't think it was a speedy. It at least deserves a proper discussion at WP:RFD. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll take it there. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion
Pls check Prakasam district, Anantapur district, Kadapa district, Srikakulam district, Vizianagaram district, Krishna district etc. Can check List of districts in Andhra Pradesh.--Vin09 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For the Talk:Pakala, Chittoor District page discussion.--Vin09 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be a jerk when I say this, but did you actually read what I wrote in my closure? We can't move Pakala, Chittoor District to Pakala, Chittoor district because the latter already exists, there is already an article there. Are these two articles on the same topic? If so they should be merged. Or are there two towns called Pakala in the Chittoor district? If so then they would both need to be moved to some sort of extra disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ok fine, thanks. I'll check it and inform you.--Vin09 (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Five Dynasties
That was now have both a Five Dynasties and a Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period seems ridiculous and a WP:Content forking. Editors on the page seem to be expecting you to arbitrate. I think all the original arguments in favor of Five Dynasties still apply and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period should redirect to it. H. Humbert (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that at the moment it's a poor situation. As you've seen I commented on the talk page and am waiting for a response from those who disagreed with my decision. I don't think it will hurt too much to wait another day or two. Jenks24 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Railway, Western Australia
The discussion has no votes, and you take it as no objection to move. However, the similar discussion Talk:Northern Railway (Western Australia) has met opposition. Would you reverse the closure and the renaming and then relist it. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think the reason Northern Railway was opposed, but Eastern Railway wasn't is because Northern is about several railways but Eastern is just about a single one, hence they require different dabs. Pinging JarrahTree and Gnangarra to make sure I've got it right, though. If they think it should be back at "Eastern Railway (Western Australia)" then I'll undo my close. Jenks24 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The same naming conventions apply this move is outside that, I thought I had made the same comments on both discussion but obviously I missed this one, eastern railway has had many alignments and routes as well. Agree can you please relist or should we just start a new one clearly we now have just this one article in conflict with every other article. Gnangarra 05:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm a bit confused now. Category:Railway lines in Western Australia and its subcats has a mish-mash of different disambiguation. Please don't feel the need to start a new one, I really am happy to completely undo my close if needs be. I'm just not sure JarrahTree is on the same wavelength as you here (he sent me a 'thanks' this morning for moving the article from "Eastern Railway (Western Australia)" to "Eastern Railway, Western Australia"). Do you mind if we wait until he weighs in here? If you two disagree then I'll still reopen it, but it might be easier to try sorting things in out in a few hours here rather than relisting and waiting a full week at RM. Jenks24 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you allow Gnangarra to vote "oppose", then please relist. --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is never an easy fix, I have access to a range of documents that can give a sense of the range of usages. Northern railway has been a term used for a range of lines, and is more appropriate to a railway district, not a specific line.


 * The reason I have a 'thanks' was the though there is a need for more precision post the northern line (s) issue.
 * If we are precise with the eastern, from year dot, the line commenced at Fremantle, so that the metropolitan line was known as the eastern line for at least 20 if not 40 years (I would need to check). As for timing, I am not near a full set of WAGR 1880-1940 docs until next tuesday, hold your horses or breath as the case may be. I suppose it is sources please, but as I say at least 1880-1900 the eastern line was one line, and it kept going all the way to northam, after that it became the eastern goldfields line. JarrahTree 09:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. Seems like opening it back up and giving it a relist is the right way to go. Better to spend another week and get it right than revisit in a couple of years. Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is a damned mess - a group of socks played with a whole lot of rail articles.
 * The Eastern railway issue is as complicated as the northern, but i have no access to clarifying sources for close to a week JarrahTree 09:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I only just realised the proposer was a sock, I definitely wouldn't have put it through otherwise. You might also want to see Talk:Brisbane Valley line which is another RM that one of the socks has started. No worries about the time, I've given it a relist so you will have at least a week. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

 * I look forward to more when you pass you next RfA, Rich Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Cheers for the history merge of pmdtechnologies :) Just to say, I also reverted your change to make the article lowercase, following, as responsible for the copy & paste move had tried to change the formatting of the title throughout the article to "pmdtechnologies". &#8209;&#8209; mjgilson T 19:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, righto. Good catch, I should have looked into it a bit more. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much
Thank you for the closure and move of the RZA page. Been trying for ages to spread awareness there of the proper naming convention. I salute you, good sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufan10304 (talk • contribs)


 * You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)