User talk:Jenks24/Archive 5

Codrington & co.
Hi Jenks. I can see what's happened here. These articles were created a few years ago based on what was then known but, since CricketArchive decided in 2010 to move its first-class cricket startpoint back to 1772 (from 1801), they've done some research into players who were around at that time and expanded their coverage. So, yes, you're absolutely right that the old articles should be renamed accordingly and updated. Well done. Thanks for letting me know too. All the best. Jack | talk page 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, Jenks. Well done. Jack | talk page 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

 * Unsurprising. Jenks24 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your moves of footballer articles
I'm intrigued for your reason for some of these moves. The one that particularly caught my attention was Ray Wilson (English footballer). Did you consider that this footballer was the primary topic for Ray Wilson (footballer)? It is not obvious from your edit summary that you did. As Ray Wilson (footballer) is also a disambiguation page it is also possible that I'm missing a consensus on how to deal with this sort of issue. Could you therefore explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Dpmuk (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd be happy to explain further. Basically, the deal is that an article can't be the primary topic of a parenthetical disambiguation. So the article needs to either be the primary topic of everyone called Ray Wilson, or it needs a unique disambiguation. As there are several other footballers of the name Ray Wilson, "(footballer)" is not unique and makes it more difficult for the reader to find the page he/she wants. From the intro of WP:D, one of the main aspects of disambiguating is "Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title." Hope this helps and I can try to elaborate further if you want. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a policy, guideline or even just a consensus for that? I seem to recall when I used to hang around more at WP:RM that there was a discussion on this sort of issue and there was no consensus about this issue - unfortunately I can't remember where this discussion was.  I can definitely see arguments both ways.  I would, for example, disagree with your "makes it makes it more difficult" statement, at least as a blanket statement.  I can see readers already somewhat familiar with wikipedia searching for "Ray Wilson (footballer)" or at least selecting this from the search box.  It then becomes a primary topic issue again - are considerably more people arriving at Ray Wilson (footballer) expecting one topic considerably more than any other.  If there is a prior consensus on this then that's fine but if not I think it needs a discussion at WP:RM. Dpmuk (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the general consensus that I've picked from hanging around RM the last few months, but no, I'm afraid I can't point to a discussion specifically about this issue. Obviously, the guideline that supports this is the one I pointed to before, Disambiguation, which says one of the intentions of the guideline is for "each [article to have] a unique title" (my bold and sorry to quote that at you again) . "Ray Wilson (footballer)" could refer to any of four people and is not unique, and therefore contrary to the guideline. That said, I would be happy to start or participate in a general discussion at WT:D or a specific RM involving Ray Wilson. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've got that idea from hanging around RM for a while I'm willing to take your word that's the rough consensus. Could possibly do with going in a guideline or something at some point but don't feel you need to do anything because of this conversation.  Although I take your point about what Disambiguation says if we always applied this there would be no point of having primary topics so I don't think that is quite what is being got at by that statement (although it is one interpretation of it).  It's the interaction between disambiguating and primary topic which is, in my opinion, currently unclear. Dpmuk (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I do understand your point. I also agree it could be made a lot clearer, so I'll start a discussion at WT:D in a little while (and I'll drop you a note when I do). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had asked previously about "partial primary disambiguations" (here), where both articles were Australian footballers but one, Peter Bell (Australian footballer born 1976), is clearly the most notable, the other one is very minor, and was told that you have a single overall primary topic or total disambiguation for all. Can't say I agree with it, but reading Tassedethe's reasons again, it seems that it is most useful to have complete disambiguation for the editors who concentrate on disambiguating links - it is obvious to you in the Wilson case and us in the Bell case who the primary sub-topic is, but not to anyone not familiar with any of them. The-Pope (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah good points. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (stole your term :) and hopefully we can get this cleared up. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!
Hi ! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script: // Add WP:Reflinks launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function { addPortletLink( "p-tb",    // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )}); onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already been using Reflinks for a few weeks. Thanks anyway, Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up my sloppy work. Much appreciated. :) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pp
I forget which style of citation style I specifically use (I learned it in college but forget the name), but it doesn't use "pp" to indicate page ranges. Also, some citation styles don't even include the "p". I for one have never had an issue not using "pp" in Good Article Nominations, Peer Reviews, Featured Article Candidates, or Featured Article Reviews. What matters most is the established citation style for an article be maintained; Wikipedia accepts all citation styles as long as they are internally consistent in an article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :-)
Thanks for your guidance on the Compiled sofware redirect. Creating the separate Compiled software redirect (and leaving the Compiled sofware redirect intact) was my initial course of action. I realized though that it would not correct the typo in articles that linked to the Compiled sofware redirect, and on discovering the "move" feature for renaming pages wondered whether that would correct any pre-existing links in articles to the Compiled sofware redirect (so that they changed to the new Compiled software redirect) thus fixing any typos in articles.

I really appreciate your help as I'm a really new editor - hence my uncertainty over how to go about correcting the redirect. So that I don't mess anything up, could you recommend an experienced editor (such as yourself maybe?) that I could run things by, before going ahead with anything? Once I fully acquaint myself with the WikiLove feature, I'll be sure to give you a proper "thank you". :-) Annoyamouse (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much :) Jenks24 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Peter Wynne-Thomas"
Shall I CU or assume good faith first? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest CU. It's at SPI in any case per WP:DUCK. Jack | talk page 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have agreed with Jack. Anyway, I now see that he's been blocked as a sockpuppet, so even in the very unlikely event that it wasn't Daft, he was clearly up to no good. Jenks24 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
Not at all. &mdash; Joseph Fox 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

More Simpsons rename
Due to your recent weigh in at Mayor Quimby and/or Principal Skinner renaming, please feel free to weigh in on Dr. Hibbert and Dr. Nick renaming. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  21:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Jenks24 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on the relisting
Jenks, Thanks for the tip. That's what I like about WP. When you are making a mistake consistently, someone steps in and sets you straight. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Jenks24 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Need name suggestion
Hi, I'm currently working on an article that will be ready to join mainspace in a few days. Can you help me with suggestions as to what it should be called? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice article :) I'd probably go with simply Olympus scandal (or maybe Olympus Corporation scandal) – if you try to completely explain what happened in the title it will probably become too unwieldy and many of the refs are calling the "Olympus scandal". Although we try not to be sensationalist with titles, if the sources are calling it a scandal then so should we (e.g. Enron scandal and Penn State sex abuse scandal). Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go with that suggestion, unless something else comes up between now and when I move it. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember me?
Hi. How are you? I just wanted to tell you that "Single Ladies" is at FAC. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jivesh. I'm good thanks (though RL is busy at the moment), how about you? Good news about "Single Ladies" (and nice to see the improvements it's made since my small edits to it). If I get the time, I'll try and give it a review at FAC. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine, thank you. Yes, surely do that if possible. Take care. RL calls here. Lol. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Orpahn tags
It is a matter of opinion. It is Self referential, it is an editor to editor communication and unlike unreferenced it is of no direct benefit to the reader. -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I am aware of the issue, as it happens it is under discussion at the moment see Template talk:Orphan. I can fix where the template appears (see the section above on the same page). -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It won't fix it completely because categories is a brain dead system, but what it can do is place the page in the appropriate alphabetic position rather than all of them under T for Talk. The other choice is to split off the category from the template so that the category is placed on the article page and the text on the talk page. If that option was chosen Whatever bot is used to count the number of categories in an article, could be used to check if the categories exceed a number and remove any category tags that humans have missed. PBS (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unconquered (1989 film)
Great catch, I just added the references to the page, "Unconquered (1989 film)". --Fsilvers (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing me with ? (But it's great that you added those references and I've removed the PROD.) Jenks24 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing a bad citation translation of reference
Hi, and thanks for welcoming me. The article section Lake Parime has an extended citation from an external blog entry (in Portuguese), translated into pretty broken English. At first glance, I was going to leave it, as I thought the original source might have been an interview done in English and was actually literally what was said in the source. But, I opened the link and it is in Portuguese. So - can anyone just do their best to translate from the source, and still format it as if it is a direct citation? I actually speak fluent Portuguese, and think I could do a better job of translating, but I don't know if that is acceptable in the sense of a citation, since translation isn't an exact science and can be subjective, interpreting what the author was really trying to say. What is the best way to go in a situation like that?

Dunc0029 (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting question – not a situation I've come across before. I think it definitely needs to be noted in the article that the quotation has been translated by us (Wikipedia) and not the source because at the moment it does look like the actual reference must be in English. The topic is a not one of the areas I normally edit, so I'd be hesitant to edit that article, but I think it would probably best for the article if we didn't directly quote the article at all and instead summarised the source. That said, if you feel that keeping the quote is the best way to go, then I it would be good if you can improve the translation. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot
I'm getting quite wary of linkrot for articles I'm preparing. I was wondering, before I go headlong down the road of webcitation, if you could look at this edit and tell me what you think as to the way archive links are introduced. This is sort of an ex-post move, because I want to 'freeze' the article from any more linkrot, but don't want to have to redo all the references in the style of Olympus scandal. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea and I can see why it would be easier to do than fully redoing them all. It looks fine to me and I can't see a simpler way to do it, but seeing as the article is still at FAC it might be best to check that it's acceptable with Nikkimaria before doing all 157 references. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, Thanks. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisting move proposals for 5 O'Clock and 5 O'clock (song)
I hope this is ok, but I have re-listed the articles 5 O'Clock and 5 O'clock (song) with a move proposal together at 5 O'clock (song)'s talk page here: Talk:5 O'clock (song). I asked on said talk page whether or not I should do so and waited 24 hrs with no response so I just went ahead and did it. There is also new evidence to consider regarding why they should be moved and my move proposal involves slightly different proposed names then others have proposed before. I hope that this helps make things clearer for everyone and not more confusing :-) I am letting all the editors who were involved in recent discussions know. Please see the talk page for more info. Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I'll reply there. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BN
Thanks, done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over USB article naming
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Jenks24 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Your argument to revert to "Afd" is a circular one, and obviously doesn't stick. But respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I disagree that my reasoning "obviously doesn't stick", but *shrug* it's not a big deal and good luck in your discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Debresser (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Errant ref
Hi, I have an errant ref on the Olympus scandal article. I don't know why it won't display when everything seems to be correct. Can you have a look at it for me, please? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed :) Apparently even the capitalisation needs to be exactly the same. Jenks24 (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Philip J. Fry
Since you commented on my recent request to rename Professor Farnsworth, I'm notifying you about the rename of Fry, feel free to comment: Talk:Philip_J._Fry. C T J F 8 3 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, commented there. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversial moves
The same editor recently made another controversial diacritics related move from Ladislav Bezak which should also be reverted per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Another one, made by a user with sporadic edit history. Please revert move of Jakub Cerny per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jenks24 (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am appalled that User:Djsasso‎ has uncivilly attacked both you   and another admin  to falsely accuse you of being a meatpuppet. Your reversions of clearly controversial moves were properly made in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and for that admin to abuse his powers to edit war, and to continue to push his pro-diacritics agenda is shameful. I am not the only editor who is concerned about his behaviour as evidenced by the User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9 discussion on his talk page. Djsasso has ignored all warnings about abusing his admin powers to make controversial moves, most recently here. Something should really be done to reign this guy in as his editing has now past the point of being disruptive. Dolovis (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And now we have 'yet another' editor with a 'sporadic editing history' who is controversially moving articles (see edit history of Thomas280784). Dolovis (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And as I stated at the other user talk page. When you go to another user and ask them to make a move for you so that you get your preferred way that is acting as a meatpuppet. That is what meatpuppets are, someone working at the request of someone else to achieve their preferred "way" in a discussion. You were specifically banned from making such moves so to go to someone else to make them for you is asking them to be your meatpuppet and is the reason I didn't revert the move he made where I saw no request by you. To be frank you are lucky I didn't interpret it as a direct violation of your ban. Often on wikipedia people who act as proxy for banned users end up in trouble themselves. So frankly a revert of the move was the nicer option available. If you want to make the move Dolovis go to RfM as you have been directed to in your ban and stop trying to find loopholes to continue fighting your war (one that didn't actually really exist until you started edit warring with everyone and anyone). -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pure rubbish. You and your cabal of like-minded POV editors imposed an article move ban on me to bully me from performing policy-approved BRD edits on controversial moves. Just because you were able to throw your weight around on me, does not mean that you have carte blanche to continue your attempted pro-diacritics fait accompli. And here you now are calling other respected editors meatpuppets and trying to bully them as well. Controversial moves must follow RM, and you are not above that requirement. Dolovis (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone is the POV warrior it is you, you have tried to argue your case on many many pages and often see the consensus against you and then disappear from the discussion to try an reach an acceptable solution to both sides. To be frank it is you attempting to perform a fait accompli by running around trying to scrounge up every player who has ever played the game with diacritics in his name so you can create it without them before anyone else can to the point where people have questioned the notability of many of them. If you acted in a civilized manor with people and stuck to a centralized discussion instead of edit warring and finding ways to "win" such as your creating of redirects with two edits to prevent others from being able to move articles you wouldn't have been banned. It's no one's but your own fault you got banned. Controversial moves have to go the RfM route once they have been objected to most certainly. But that doesn't prevent the initial bold move which anyone can make at any time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The way in which DJSasso misconstrue the facts is shameful, and his apparent lack of understanding of policy is appalling. There should be a review of DJSasso's status as an administrator. Dolovis (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, DJSasso, please stop referring to me as a "meatpuppet" and throwing around vague threats about how I could "get in trouble [myself]". If you honestly believe that, feel free to take this issue to ANI and I'll be happy to make my case there. Secondly, stop move-warring. You have violated BRD to try and enforce your preference and that's not on. I'm not going to revert you, but I am sure any outsider looking in would be able to tell you that when there is disagreement over an articles title, we default to the title that was in use before the disagreement began and to change that requires consensus through a RM discussion. It may interest you to know that I've given up on these diacritics RMs – I honestly couldn't care less and the only actions I take these days is to revert undiscussed moves and object to diacritics moves being listed as "uncontroversial" at RM (and that is whether they are adding or removing diacritics). The only thing I think we can safely say is that no diacritics-related moves are uncontroversial and all should go through a discussion. As I said above, to move war so that it stays at your preference until that discussion happens is not OK, but unfortunately I just don't care enough about this issue to get into yet another debate about it or continue your move war. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please enjoy a cold beer on me

 * Thanks, mate! I always find your expansions really interesting reading, so those tweaks are no problem at all. Hope you have a great new year's, Jenks24 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Will you have time to copy-edit an article for me? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jivesh. Sorry, but I'm going to have to say no because I'm on holiday at the moment and have very limited time to spend on Wikipedia. If you still need one after Jan. 20th feel free to drop me a line. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will wait. Happy New Year 2012. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You too, Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DJ OZMA
A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:
How do I get the archived peer review back? Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, do you know how to do moves? As in sandbox to mainspace? Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 06:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I assume you're talking about User:Calvin999/Sandbox4 and Birthday Cake (song)? If so, you need an admin to do the move (so I can't do it, I'm afraid). I'd suggest leaving a request at WP:RM with a brief explanation that the song is now notable but you need an admin's help to move over the redirect and it should be taken care of in a few hours. Alternatively, if you're friendly with any admins you could just ask someone to do it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am lol. OKay thanks. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't look closely enough. You only really want the history from Jan 7 to be moved (not your other stuff from that sandbox), so you should also note at WP:RM that you also want basically a WP:HISTSPLIT so that only the history from Jan 7 is moved, not the entire history of the sandbox. If in doubt, drop a note to -- he's the expert. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 07:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, I just saw that and was about to write the same thing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaa. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 07:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your stealth revert on WP:CENT
I am disappointed that you have elected to revert my addition of a long brewing (and having made the rounds at multiple DR venues including DRN, ANI, AN, 3O, and others) without even giving me a note letting me know you did it. Being that the principle is going to affect multiple pages (in the same vein), I was under the impression that it qualified for CENT under "Discussions on matters that have a wide impact". I acknoledge that it strays into the Inappropriate reasons category, however this discussion has been very heated for several 6 months or more, so I would think that listing it at CENT would have brought different users in to a debate that could have helped firm up consensus. Please reconsider. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, if you have such limited access to WP, do you really think it was a good idea to be reverting a good faith addition so there could be no discussion about the action? Hasteur (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hasteur. I'm sorry that you feel that my revert was somehow deceitful -- that was never my intention. I had meant to drop you a note about it, but I forgot to and for that I apologise. However, I still believe that removing that discussion from CENT was the right thing to do -- to me, it seems clear that this is a content dispute and, as such, falls afoul of WP:CENTNOT. Nowhere in the RfC or on the CENT notice did it say that this would affect more than one page, and even if it did I'd still probably consider it a content dispute and not something that will not have a broad impact. That all said, perhaps you are correct, so I'll drop a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion. In response to your final question, I made the undo even though I have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment because I honestly thought (naively in hindsight) that it would be uncontroversial and discussion would not be required. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Archie Roberts
Hi! for some reason, your edit of "Archie Roberts" blocked what I was trying to add. Could you please check that the issues you raised earlier have been incorporated in my expansion. Sorry to be a pest, but there was not other way of doing things. Best to you. Lindsay658 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, edit conflicts are a pain. Just checked and there was no problem. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask
Hi. How are you? Back? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Jivesh. I'm good thanks and, yes, I'm back :) Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready for a c/e request? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I should probably tell you again that I don't think my copyediting skills are at FA quality. Jenks24 (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. It is "If I Were a Boy". Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look at it, but it has a under construction tag on it at the moment, so does that mean you want me to wait a while? Jenks24 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you can proceed. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll start in a sec. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Listen, i may have ask you this question in that but I don't remember for sure. Do you listen to Beyonce's music? If no, what genre of songs do you like? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Must admit I'm not a huge fan of Beyonce. I don't listen to much music at all, to be honest, and when I do it's generally just whatever's on the radio, so I do hear Beyonce's stuff every now and then. Jenks24 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I also left some comments on the talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Sorry for late reply. There was a major power cut here. It lasted 8 hours. Thank you wholeheartedly. I will take a look tomorrow. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I noticed you online from my watchlist, and I was just wondering if its possible to use a certain more than once in an article. For example, how you'd use for more than one ref on a page. Thanks, — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  07:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Status. I'm sure it must be possible, but I'm not sure how to do it with . I had a look at Help:Footnotes and you can do it by using and . Hope that helps, but if not you might want to try asking at WP:VPT. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! It worked. :) — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  07:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League
Hi Stifle. I was wondering if you could have another look over Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League. It probably sounds arrogant considering that it was 4:1 in favour of deletion, but I really don't think there was a consensus to delete. I think I clearly showed that the tournament meets GNG (and CLUB, though I'm still not sure why that was used as a rationale), while the delete voters did not refute this and mainly used "just not notable"-type arguments. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As per my /FAQs, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully before closing. I could not reasonably close that AFD as keep. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will consider DRV. Jenks24 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Jenks, it might me a huge coincidence, although I doubt it. There are two editors who voted in favor of the move on Paraguayan War's talk page, Paulomazzeirj and Ilhador. Both are certainly Brazilians and I suspect that they are the same person. Take a look at both user contributions. It might be one, big coincidence that both share an interest on Soviet tanks and Royal Houses. I and think is even more odd when you notice that Paulomazzeirj hasn't edited for almost 2 years. Appearing here, out of nowhere, in an article which he never contributed before? --Lecen (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it is very odd that Paulomazzeirj has returned after two years, but sockpuppets are a bit out of my depth. It's my understanding that you need really strong evidence for a CheckUser to be performed and I'm not sure if this is strong enough (merely suspicious). Sorry I can't help more. Jenks24 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the move request was frauded. Take a look. --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good instincts by you. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayan War
I'm sorry if I crossed the line on Paraguayan War's talk page. It bothered me a lot his accusation that the name itself is Brazilian POV. Whoever diagrees with him he says that its either "OR" or they are simply wrong. I disagree with the idea of proposing another move because as you can see, only he and Wee Curry Monster don't like the title. I would understand a request to move if there were many editors complaining about it, which is clearly not the case. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lecen. First, I don't think you were the only one who had crossed the line and I probably shouldn't have singled you out. The point I was trying to make is that (in my experience) commenting on what you believe another editor's motivations to be never turns out to be constructive, no matter how frustrated you are (and yeah, I've been there). Instead, if you can focus on the the issue and not the people involved, your arguments actually look much better to outside/neutral editors. As to having another RM, I don't think there would be much harm in doing so, though I understand how you could feel it would be a waste of time. It seems almost certain that the article would remain at Paraguayan War. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but take for example Wee Curry Monster's usual reply: "I'm Scottish and I never saw a book call the conflict 'Paraguayan War'". A quick search on Amazon UK and you'll find 72 results for "Paraguayan War" and only 17 results for "War of the Triple Alliance". In other words: the average British will probably find a book about the "Paraguayan War", not about the "War of the Triple Alliance". When I and other users said that "Triple Alliance" is confusing or that there are more books nowadays that prefer the term "Paraguayan War" both editors simply ignored our remarks. How can someone argue when another person is either ignoring or saying something that makes no sense? He opens another move request, could I open another soon after? Would it be and end to it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm done there. He ignored an ongoing discussion on the talk page and will try to push foward the move proposal regardless of it. He didn't tried to listen to the people who actually contribute to the article, which makes it all a waiste of time. --Lecen (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to be acting as a kind of neutral observer I Thought it wouldn't harm if I made a few comments about the move request. You saw the sock puppets, the blatant canvassing, messages erased, etc... Take a look at the message written by the editor who asked the move on Jimbo Wales' talke page: "...this seems to be an issue raised by Brazilian/Portuguese wikipedians (they seem to all be from either place). I am not a native English speaker either, and so perhaps you might have a better perspective on the matter? I don't even know if their argument is even relevant to the move discussion." Except for myself, and Paulista, everyone else who voted against the move is a native English speaker. But look at what is written in bold. You can have an idea of how serious it is his argument.


 * I copied Astynax's brillian comment and pasted it above mine and the editors who are in favor of the move reverted my edit. Mind you that Astynax is my friend and my colleague. All articles I wrote which are now FAs were made together with him. But you must have an idea of why they erased the comment: because they know it's relevant and explain well why the move shouldn't be done and to them it's far better to keep it buried beneath the junk of sterile comments far below. I'm seeing a bunch o comments made by editors who clearly do not know a lot about the subject being discussed (in fact, they seem to know nothing). Their reason to oppose: "Its Brazilian POV/I never heard such name before." Astynax's comment made clear that they are either wrong or do not know of what they are talking about. Using as argument a kind of "cultural/foreign bias" is certainly unhealthy due to its clearly xenophobic tone. None of them even tried to discuss the issue. "Oppose. It's Brazilian stuff... well... because the editor who made the original move it's Brazilian." Wonderful. I wish someone actually bothered to discuss how historiography deal with the subject. None of the people who asked for the move bothered to do so. --Lecen (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)