User talk:Jenks24/Archive 9

Talkback
Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page. --03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my RM glitch
Sorry, my excuse is that I have bad flu at the moment. Tony  (talk)  10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens to everyone. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
Could you revert an undiscussed page move for Hồng Bàng Dynasty? I tried to db-move, but that was reverted. Britannica gives "Hung dynasty", as does History of Vietnam (2008). Cf. Tudor dynasty. Kauffner (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Done. Jenks24 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was an easy decision to make. Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory
On this page Telephone numbers in the British Indian Ocean Territory, the link in the Asia box doesn't work. The "the" is missing. Is that something you can fix up? 80.42.230.234 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, good to hear from you again. Yep, I made this tweak to Template:Asia topic and it seems to have done the trick. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Speedy as ever! Not had time to look in for a long time. Too many other commitments. 80.42.230.234 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Oh yes, I understand. If you ever do get some spare time and create an account, drop me a line. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone reverted the changes. 80.42.236.4 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it, sorry. Could you provide a link? Jenks24 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario
I need your advice again. As an arbitrator, you know much more than I do about policies. Our decision to rename Scale (music) is being discussed in WT:AT. I was wondering if you could help me to fully understand this statement of yours (see above):
 * What I meant in my closing statement, and perhaps this wasn't expressed clearly enough, is that the oppose and support votes were equally well founded in policy and therefore each vote was assigned the same 'weight'. However, one side clearly had far more support" ... "and that became the deciding factor when the quality of argument was equal. I took into account the relevant guidance at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE and WP:RMCI when making the decision...
 * Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that the oppose and support votes were "equally well" founded in policy. Obviously, most of this weight was given by WP:NCDAB, which stated:
 * If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, ... there is no hard rule about which is preferred. ... The choice between them is made by consensus ...

Indeed, in your closing statement for the requested move to "Scale (music)", you wrote:
 * The title/naming sections of WP:D do exist to supplement WP:AT, but as a widely supported guideline it cannot be completely dismissed and does carry some weight.

I guess that, without WP:NCDAB, you would have rejected the RM. Am I right? In other words, the support expressed by most editors in Talk:Scale (music) would not have enough "weight" to prevail against a preference for "natural disambiguation" explicitly expressed by a Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION, would it? Paolo.dL (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. To be honest, the WP:NCDAB argument was one of the weakest made because it was clearly refuted by Powers (policy > guideline). To simplify the discussion, I saw it as a straight up dispute between "consistency is more important (in this case)" vs "WP:PRECISION is more important (in this case)". Seeing as both WP:PRECISION and consistency are part of WP:AT, they are both equally well founded in policy and therefore carry the same weight. Jenks24 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see now! Thank you for your reply. I did not notice that WP:D was a guideline. I thought it was a policy.
 * However, you seem to neglect that we based our RM not only on "consistency", but also on "naturaleness", that are both points contained in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Readers should get what they expect as a title of an encyclopedia ("naturalness"), and in some cases editors may agree that this is a title with parentetical disambiguation. It can be shown that, for some ambiguous terms (such as "Scale"), the latter is used in most encyclopedias and dictionaries, even when "natural" disambiguation, as described in WP:PRECISION, is available. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the naturalness argument had slipped my mind in my previous comment. However, the consistency argument was stronger than the naturalness one. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you were an arbitrator. You made some comments to me last month.  Hail Jenks24.  Auchansa (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, no I'm not an arbitrator and now that you mention it I feel a little guilty for not correcting Paolo. Jenks24 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletes on various AFL afd's
Hello. This is step 1 in a WP:DRV about several AFL 'rivalry' deletion debates. I have to ask why you made several speedy keep decisions for articles that clearly fail WP:N or at least should have had an actual debate. Not a single reason was given for the speedy keeps and none of the examples given to allow a speedy keep at WP:SK apply to any of the articles proposed for deletion, all of whom have had several months or years to gain better references. The AFD guidelines say that after seven days an uninvolved admin will assess the deletion debate, you are part of Wikiproject AFL and cannot be considered 'uninvolved'. This is a clear violation of all the guidelines established for WP:AFD and WP:SK and I will be proceeding to a WP:DRV should you be unable to acknowledge your erroneous speedy keeps and your stifling of established wikipedia guidelines simply because you have a bias about the subjects of the deletion debates. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. They were all speedily kept (not deleted) per WP:SK, "The nomination was unquestionably [...] disruption". The votes in the AfDs (The-Pope's comments spring to mind) should have made it apparent to you why the nominations were disruptive. This was not an error and I will not be reversing my actions. If you do go to DRV, I'd recommend turning the hyperbole down a notch or two. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can equate deletion requests on pages that include ones with zero sources at all to be 'disruptive', and it in no way compares to a user page or in an edit war. As such I will be proceeding to a DRV. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When did I say this was comparable to user pages or edit wars? And it is disruptive to make retaliation AfDs because an article you created was deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

a request
Hi there, Could you please reopen this proposal. You know there is also another proposal which is the same as this one. I was wondering if we could have more time to discuss the issue. Thanking you in anticipation. In fact 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Although the consensus was clearly against the move, there was low participation, so I'm not outright against reopening it. However, if I do are you able to refute (or at least make an argument against) Powers' and Obi2canibe's opposes? If you can't, then there's really no point in reopening as it will just be closed the same way in a week. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RM for Edouard René Hambye
Could you take a look at this non-administrative closure by Mdann52? It is being challenged here. Kauffner (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Salted articles on currently listed players
Not sure if you were around back them but we had a few batches of micro subs being repeatedly created, so a bunch were salted including Tom Derickx. This has now been created at Tom Derickx (footballer) and should be moved to the primary topic. Is there an easy way to see how many more salted AFL current player articles exist? Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember this. I've moved the article. Hmmm, interesting question, but I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe ask at WP:VPT? If you do get a list, I'll be happy to change the protection to [create=autoconfirmed] or just remove it entirely (the guy's not still doing it, is he?). Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

talkpage move?
Hello Jenks.

Did you forget to move the talkpage Talk:Nanjing incident when you moved the article page?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. It looks moved to me, Talk:Nanjing incident is currently a redirect to Talk:Nanking Incident. Is that not what you're seeing? Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget the previous reply. The talkpage is still at the uncapped version. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See this diff, I'm quite sure it has been moved and I can't see that anyone has moved it back or anything else strange happening. Maybe try bypassing your cache? Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Also see the move log. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There's something really fishy going on here. When I click Talk:Nanjing incident, I get this result:


 * Talk:Nanjing incidentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * (Redirected from Talk:Nanjing incident)
 * , which indicates that a redirect has taken place - to itself. Then the talkpage follows.

But when I click Talk:Nanking Incident, I end up at the Talk:Nanjing incident. Note that its the J variant of the name, and the uncapped version of "incident", from the K variant, with the capped "Incident". The strangest thing is that I don't get a redirect message.

Could it be my cache that is pulling my leg?

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh, that's really weird. I think it must be your cache, but if bypassing it doesn't work then I'm stumped. Maybe ask at WP:VPT? Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't the links above do the same thing for you when you click them? HandsomeFella (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. When I click on Talk:Nanjing incident, I get redirected to Talk:Nanking Incident and the small note reads "(Redirected from Talk:Nanjing incident)". When I click on Talk:Nanking Incident, I'm not redirected anywhere, I just go to Talk:Nanking Incident and there is no small redirect note. Jenks24 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Animal-rights movement
Hi, shortly after you moved this page, someone else moved it to Animal-rights movement; given that this move was the result of a due process RM, I think adding the hyphen (which isn't supported by sources) is improper. Would you consider reverting this move? I don't have the power. --KarlB (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, done. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * uh oh. User_talk:Kwamikagami. He's now revert-warring - he just moved it back. I'm not an admin, so I don't know the proper course here. I do register that regardless of MOS, the hyphen was not discussed and I for one don't agree.--KarlB (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not going to get into a move war over this and I would recommend no one else should either. My suggestion would be to wait for Kwami to reply. If he still won't move the article back, then your best option is to start a new RM. If you do this, explicitly state in the nomination that the non-hyphen version was reached by consensus and that the hyphen version was not. That way if the RM closes as "no consensus", the closing admin should still move it to the non-hyphenated title as that was the last title to have consensus. Hope this helps. Jenks24 (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just annoying to have to be the one proposing an RM (and arguing for a move), when he used/abused the mop to put the article where he wanted it, in spite of a clear lack of consensus.--KarlB (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Things like this are, IMO, one of the most irritating things about Wikipedia. Actually, now that I think about it a little more, you could probably take this to ANI if you want a quick resolution. Just say something like "Could someone uninvolved please move [article X] back to the title that was the consensus at RM just a day ago [link RM]. I have tried discussing this with Kwami, but he will not move the article back to the consensus version and I do not want to get involved in a move war." It might get you the result you're after, but you also might get told to just take it to RM, and you will probably have people more than happy to give their two cents on whether the article should have a hyphen. Jenks24 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Coach Ernie Pantusso
How long must I wait before I can propose renaming to "Coach Pantusso"? --George Ho (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, because I've said "no prejudice ...", you may start a new RM whenever you wish. I would suggest waiting at least a little while, though, because consecutive RMs can be irritating to other editors. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the minimum and recommendation of "a little while"? --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say wait at least a week or two, but ultimately the decision is yours. Jenks24 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology
Hello Jenks24,

While editing using a mobile phone, I was looking at my watchlist. Something else came up and I put my phone into my pocket. Inadvertently, I hit "rollback" and removed a comment you made on Sandstein's talk page. This was an unexpected mistake as I was not even taking a look at that talk page at the time. I very much regret this error and offer my apologies.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cullen. No problem at all, these things happen to everyone. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see it's already been resolved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent move for Vehicle dynamics
Sorry to bother you Jenks24, but I thought I should let you know I wasn't informed on my talk page of the recent discussion in relation to moving the page Vehicle dynamics. I wasn't particularly invested in the grammatically precise name, especially given some precedence for the current name. Nevertheless, I believe the opposing viewpoint in the move discussion may have been neglected as a result. In addition, categorisation of the previous move as "lunacy" does concern me on a minor level. Thanks and best wishes. --Xaliqen (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bother at all, Xaliqen. Perhaps unfortunately (I must admit I haven't given it much thought), editors who begin a RM are not required, and nor is it even suggested as a best practice, to notify other editors who have previously been involved with moving the article. I think this is probably because it is assumed that those who have previously moved the page will have it on their watchlist and become aware of the discussion in that fashion. You are welcome to start a new requested move if you'd like, but I'm afraid I can't to do something like reopen the discussion for you, as the nominator did not actually do anything wrong. I have no real knowledge of the topic in question, but I agree that describing your move as "lunacy" is unfair – it looked quite reasonable to me, even if it seems more people preferred the original title. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, discussion became slightly heated when I raised the issue over on the article talk-page again. Perhaps I shouldn't have, and I'll reflect on that. I'm actively disengaging from that discussion right now, which seems the best course. I suppose my own confusion resulted from my use of twinkle, which of course automates much of the move discussion process. Not every day is one's greatest, and I should've waited for a better one before raising the issue over there. Best wishes. --Xaliqen (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up after page move!
Do you use 'replace all" of any text editor or custom regex script or any other script for clean up works after making a move, as you have done here? I also used to use Word processor's replace all functions! But, it changes image file name and reference titles too! So, I have stopped using it. Do you have any other suggestion for quick clean up? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I don't. Like you, I've tried to use search-and-replace before, but I found it generally breaks things (references, images, etc.), so I do it manually. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Report on Vietnam
As you may or may not be aware, I have a long-term pet project to standardize the format of Wiki's Vietnam-related articles. In the diacritics RfC last year, the editors who wanted to rewrite the the guideline cited primarily National Geographic and Britannica, neither of which use Vietnamese diacritics. This was a very large RfC, so I rewrote the Vietnamese naming conventions to conform to the outcome. Since then, I have been plugging away periodically to implement this. I standardized not only titles, but also the format for the openings and infoboxes. Judging from his contribution list, User:In ictu oculi has spent a great of time and effort in the last week or so to frustrate what I have been doing. He has a posted a series of RM and uses each one as a platform to make accusations against me, see here, here, or here. He frequently badgers me with questions and demands that I do this or that. Explaining myself doesn't help; He can start right back up with the same questions. If I move an article, categorize a redirect, or make spelling in the text correspond to a title, there is a new round of complaints. He is also busy creating articles about non-notable subjects, Dolvis-syle. I don't know if you can do anything about any of that, but something you might help me with is Bui Doi. I tried lower casing this to Bui doi, but IIO reverted my request. It isn't a proper noun. There's no reason to upper case it except that he wants to get back at me. Kauffner (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, concerning. Just glanced over the three RMs; one thing that was odd is when you provided sources that IIO has previously said were top quality with regards to diacritics, he dismisses them for Vietnamese articles. Nothing can be done about that, though. It is also disappointing to see RMs where he has said, effectively, "look at this category for the de facto naming practice" and then proceeded to create stub articles to fill that category with his preference. As you say, I'm not sure this is something I can help with: I am probably too involved to make a serious admin action, if it did come down to that, and things like that are normally handled by a consensus at ANI, rather than one admin. I will discuss what happened at Bui Doi with IIO, but at first glance it looks like he must be following your edits, which is unacceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me on Bui Doi. I've created an RfC for the titling issue. I am contacting everyone who participated in Talk:Vo_Chi_Cong, which was the last time this issue came up. Kauffner (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see. Hopefully some uninvolved editors will comment soon. I'll take a look when I get some spare time. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request
Hi there, re this edit, the only reason why I put a move request up in the first place is that there was a redirect in the way with an edit history. Without that obstacle, I would have just moved the article. Given that there wasn't any comment on the request, I would have expected that an admin simply moves it, given that it's obviously uncontroversial. I'm surprised that you have relisted it. Should I have put up a different type of request? You can reply here.  Schwede 66  06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yeah, I normally just make the move if there hasn't been any comment for the week, but in this case, because the redirect has a history of pointing to a different article, I thought it would be best to give it another week. If it goes another week without comment, I'll make the move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.  Schwede 66  08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

International cricket has more priority,Remember always
As you said supremacy of formats, it goes: Test, ODI, first-class, List A, T20I, T20, but the international cricket includes only 3 format:Test ,ODIs,T20Is,after that any domestic format comes.international cricket has more priority that domestic  cricket.Remeber a player calibre is known by its international record ,not by dumb domestic cricket including List a and first class matches.Remember. Refer to ICC and Cricinfo .Remember international is more important.dont go on huge waste figures data in domestic cricket. (talk)  06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to slow down. Although I don't agree with you, your argument is not completely unreasonable. The problem is not that you're edits are obviously wrong, it's that you aren't taking the time to discuss things, you're edit warring to force your preference and you're completely ignoring the advice you've been given. This would be a stupid thing to get blocked over, but it could well happen if you continue with this disruptive attitude. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * What a nice surprise! Thanks very much :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. More often than not, it is the minor edits that make a big difference to articles. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese). KarlB (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

INGRID page.
Hi, I'm just here to ask for details on why the page for the Swedish 'INGRID' art collective was deleted. The primary points were listed in the deletion log, but if specifics on what would constitute a suitable page on the subject (which includes several major musical artists, and with proper references etc. should most likely be deemed noteable), I would hope I could create a better and more suitable page. However, I don't want to just make the same mistakes as the previous author and cause nuisance. Any pointers appreciated. AmbroseCadwell (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ambrose. I see that has already given you a really good response and I can only echo what he said: make sure to show that INGRID has coverage in independent reliable sources. See this guide for how to cite these sources. Feel free to ask if you have any follow up questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey, thanks for the work you put into setting ATV Jordan right. BigNate37(T) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Praha hlavní nádraží RM, Lady Trieu RM
Hi Jenks, as RM-closer you should be aware of a possible oddity concerning two RMs you closed. It seems an IP has been setting up Miszabot archiving (itself no problem) in an unusual manner over several recent RMs: In the second case had I, or other Users, been able to see User:Amore Mio's objections in RM1 then it is likely that there would have been oppose statements. But I am not asking for it to be reopened. This post is for info only, I am not requesting any action. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Praha hlavní nádraží - immediately prior to recent no consensus RM2 - I have left a more detailed timeline there.
 * Talk:Lady Trieu - edit immediately prior to recent successful RM2 and move
 * OK, well thanks for the heads up I guess. Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm afraid that Praha hlavní nádraží RM, Lady Trieu RM are among those at Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Perhaps it's naive of me, but I really hope it's a coincidence. It'd be terrible to lose a contributor of Kauffner's calibre. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact yes, this may surprise but this kind of thing gives me no pleasure or satisfaction whatsoever. You could always ask him straight, RMs which you closed are affected and they are not even diacritic related. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The auto archive bot issue has already been laughed out of town. If Prolog knew about page moves and couldn't be bothered to revert them, they can't be that big a deal. He sure sounds ticked though. Maybe there is an article about Finland somewhere I can copyedit, or some other way to make nice to the guy. Kauffner (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cinnamon Dog-faced Bat
You already closed requested-moves for Para Dog-faced Bat and Southern Dog-faced Bat, this is the third. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now done, thanks for letting me know. Jenks24 (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Histmerge
hello,

could you check whether the history of User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox14 could be merged with Pyramid of Neferefre? Thanks in advance. Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and done. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—David Levy 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support. That was sure a lot of fireworks. I guess I no longer have a clean wiki-record to boast of. As soon as I get over this flu, I expect to be once again doing my thing, either promoting the use of the English language, or oppressing black Eastern Europeans, depending on how you look it. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Clean block log and then indef'd just because you didn't want to respond to one comment? Bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked MSGJ's user page before I reverted, but I didn't see any indication that he is an admin. Kauffner (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's quite weird. I'll ask him about it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on social media
Did I insert unnecessary info there? Are there any more unnecessary info in Twitter section? --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know, George. My involvement with that article was only because of the move you asked for. I'd suggest either asking on the talk page or asking one of the experienced editors who has been active on the talk page. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why removing such content then? --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can't recall doing that, I must have clicked rollback accidentally. I'm sorry, I've undone my edit. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Peccaries
Thank You for moving White-lipped Peccary and Chacoan Peccary. Will you be fixing all the now-redirected links or will other users have to it? Outback the koala (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've fixed all the double redirects, but it isn't necessary for anyone to fix the normal redirects (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I was surprised to read NOTBROKEN, because this is something I've been doing for years! Might be a hard habit to break. Outback the koala (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

MoS: "Russo-Turkish" vs. "Russo–Turkish"
Hey, Jenks24

There hasn't been much discussion here and not any here, so should I proceed to make the changes (converting instances of "Russo–Turkish" into "Russo-Turkish", or is it customary to wait longer for a result to take shape / a consensus to be acted upon to emerge, and if so, how much longer?

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, considering you are the only one who has advocated the dash and you've now changed your mind on it, feel free to go ahead and change back to hyphens. If you do, I'll close the RM as withdrawn. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. With regards to article names, I think all is back to how it was before, except for this, for which I ask your help in moving it because I can't do myself [anymore]. (Sorry for all the confusion caused by my misguided edits, by the way.) If I'm not mistaken, it used to be like this:


 * "Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–1739)"


 * (Without meaning to open another can of worms, but this construction makes me question the "Franco-British rivalry" thing of the MoS anew: Since a hyphen is combining, it usually expresses parts of a whole, as in "Franco-British heritage" – a heritage consisting of both French and British influences –, right? Now, the en dash in such contexts is pitting things against each other, as in "French–British rivalry". So can there really be such a thing as a "Franco-British rivalry" in that sense? Wouldn't that imply a rivalry within a Franco-British whole, like, within the Angevin Empire or so, when [parts of] both France and Britain were part of the same political entity? But then, when speaking of page numbers – as in "pp. 32–35" –, for example, the en dash doesn't denote opposites, either. Man, this whole thing is headache-inducing...)


 * – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. No problem about this, it took me quite a while to get my head around this dash stuff and there are still plenty of things where I'm not quite sure. Regarding the can of worms, I'd suggest asking about it at WT:MOS if you want a good response (as I said, I'm no expert) – the people there are all very knowledgeable and happy to explain things. Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks again – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

RM close
Could you please revert your close of Talk:Jane Harrison (GC)? Mike Cline closed it yesterday, but reverted it on my request to get more input. I thought it would run for another week, not less than 24 hours.... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I didn't look at the history before closing. The problem at the moment is that RM bot is down, so relisting isn't possible and it's been in the backlog for well over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. AN/I looks quiet, so I'll post for more eyes over there. :-)-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

CKW (deleted)

 * Dear Jenks24 I asked Ubelowme to omit or replace his/her sentence "The writing style is ... too opaque for me to make the enormous effort to plough through it" by a more BALANCED statement in the final discussion about the deletion. It seems that this is not possible according to WP rules and the results of AfD processes are meant to remain the way they were written. Please, can you tell me whether and if at all (under what conditions whatsoever) an article that was created and deleted plus the subsequent discussion that settled the dispute can be COMPLETELY taken away from public viewing. Thank you for your reply. I am thinking about creating a new entry, but not in the coming 12 months. Therefore, I would like to ask you to delete all records. Thank you. Culturalknowledgeworker (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have "courtesy blanked" Articles for deletion/Cultural Knowledge Work (CKW) for you. Ubelowme's comment is still viewable in the history, however, and I'm afraid I'm not allowed to completely delete discussions. The courtesy blanking also means that search engines like Google won't be able to find it. Regarding the actual article, Cultural Knowledge Work (CKW), it has been deleted from the public record and is only viewable by administrators. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

sam loxton
Hi Jenks24 I noticed the names of the candidates that Loxton stood against in all his elections were named except one, the election of 1961. This was an important election for Loxton and for Prahran due to the history made when an issue occurred at the ballot box (have a look at page and references) Hence i added the name of the candidate as i was currently making a page for them. Lgbtoz (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. I hadn't noticed that the opposition candidate was normally mentioned. Sorry for undoing your edit. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Door furniture
How did you find no consensus to move Door furniture? Only one person opposed. Powers T 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the one oppose and Dicklyon's comment were far stronger than the supports. No one supporting proved that "door hardware" was used in British English, only that you hoped it would be. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I specifically refuted Dicklyon's comment. I have found Google Ngram Viewer's "British English" filter to be extremely unreliable, to the point of uselessness.  But even if you accept its results, the Ngram clearly shows that "door hardware" is indeed used in British English.  The line was not flat at 0; it showed use.  Powers T 12:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was also shown that "door furniture" is used in American English, the line was not a flat 0 there either. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be in use, but not to refer to this topic (which makes this title ambiguous to boot). As mentioned in the discussion, "door furniture" in American English seems to actually refer to furniture with doors, rather than the fasteners and hinges and knobs that are installed in a door.  Powers T 15:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just re-read the discussion and I'm beginning to see your points. I'll undo my closure and let another admin have at it because I'm not sure anymore. Sorry about this, but considering I closed about 70 RMs yesterday it's no surprise I messed one up :) Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's why we have discussions. I certainly wouldn't be up for that kind of workload.  Powers T 17:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenks, thanks for all your work on closing RMs recently, work that normally only gets acknowledged by complaints. I don't really mind on this one, but I agree with you that the arguments about commonality were not very compelling.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that was my first (and second) thought when I read over the discussion, but after thinking about it more I'm not sure I gave enough weight to the argument that the current title is confusing/ambiguous for US readers, whereas this might not be the case for UK readers if things were switched around. It will be interesting to see what the next admin decides. Jenks24 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria
Where was the clear consensus for the RM closure at Syrian Civil War? Considering there were editors who would not support a move without decapitalisation, I don't think it was as clear as you judged it to be. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one person opposed the removal of "(2011–present)" and even they changed to neutral later on. In addition, no arguments were put forward for why "(2011–present)" should be removed, while WP:PRECISION (policy) clearly supports the removal. If you mean that some people did not participate in the RM, well I can't help with that – I can only make a decision based on the comments that are made. Jenks24 (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move process
I made a requested move Talk:Silajit Majumder (this was my one of the very first requests), which ended with a "no consensus", later I found someone else has become WP:BOLD and moved the article to proposed first name spelling! I generally never move an article directly, the only reason I want to notify creator/primary contributors about the proposed move, which is not possible in direct move. Recently you have closed this request as Talk:Kalpana_Datta as no consensus. But, how that can be a "no consensus", see all the references and external links added in the article are using the proposed spelling. Anyway... I think someone will be WP:BOLD and move the article directly in future (as it has happened few times before too). And in such situation, what is the value of the previous request move's consensus (even if it is "no consensus", still it is a consensus)? The procedure should be changed– if a request of moving an article to a particular title has been rejected somehow, and later if anyone wants to do the the same move, (s)he has to discuss first and can't move directly! In addition, I want to re-apply the move since all ref and ELs are using proposed spelling. But, I don't want to start move review, shall I request move again? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. In truth, it was very close – I almost closed it as moved because your argument was stronger than the opposer's, but he still had a reasonable position and I had no way of knowing whether the sources you presented in the nom were just cherry-picking, hence the "no consensus" close. Yes, you should absolutely feel free to start a new RM. I hope next time there are more participants as that makes judging the consensus a lot easier. Regarding "if a request of moving an article to a particular title has been rejected somehow, and later if anyone wants to do the the same move, (s)he has to discuss first", this is how it's supposed to work (though it is more of an honesty system, no technical limitation is imposed) and if someone does that you are permitted to revert with a summary along the lines of "previously discussed and rejected, please start a discussion". Hope that helps, Jenks24 (talk)
 * We can expect some more participants if we introduce few project dedicated barnstars. 1/2 new barnstars can be created (if there is not any). some current barnstars like Template:The Socratic barnstar fit with the theme.
 * Is it possible to count the number of requested moves made by a person? If so, we can create a counter like "This editor has made WX requested move with YZ% success rate (where success rate less than 60% means bad, the editor needs to slow down and think well before requesting. – I don't think it'll be possible for technical limitation and for some other reasons (eg. people may start requesting moves to increase counter etc).
 * I have seen movers don't vote. We can create a new title "Requested move volunteers" or "Requested move reviewers"– who'll review and vote in discussions, it'll help to quickly decide that whether an article should be moved or not! One barnstar can be created for these volunteers! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. Anything that improved participation at RM would have my support. I don't know if it would be possible find the number of RMs a person has started. I'm guessing it might be possible (they do it for AfD), but I have no idea how you'd go about it. I'd also caution against reading too much into percentages – as can be seen by the RM you just started, sometimes you can make a good, reasonable nomination that still doesn't end up as "moved". I'm not sure I really see how these "requested move volunteers" will change anything, why would that be any different to the current editors who help out and participate at RMs? Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted an edit from your talk page, hope you have seen.
 * a) I also don’t know how to find number of RMs started by an editor b) I sometimes make many RMs in a month, this is the latest and another one under construction (here it may be helpful too, if you see this "under construction" RM, you'll find I have asked another editor if that makes a strong point to request a move, I have not got any reply still. If we had a "requested move volunteers" team or something so, I could easily ask these questions to them (admins should not disturbed for this kind of useless questions)) b) I could not find any participants list in RM page. Some projects have a separate sub-page on participants. c) What do you think about project dedicated barnstars? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the revert; thanks. I agree that "under construction" RMs are often a good idea because they make your nomination better and you can also get some useful suggestions (and if not, no harm done). I guess a participants list wouldn't be a bad idea so that editors who are new to RM can easily find some editors to ask for help. In general, though, if you ask a a question at WT:RM you will get a fairly prompt response. As to RM-specific barnstars, sounds fine to me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the revert; thanks. I agree that "under construction" RMs are often a good idea because they make your nomination better and you can also get some useful suggestions (and if not, no harm done). I guess a participants list wouldn't be a bad idea so that editors who are new to RM can easily find some editors to ask for help. In general, though, if you ask a a question at WT:RM you will get a fairly prompt response. As to RM-specific barnstars, sounds fine to me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)