User talk:Jenks24/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Vague IP comment

hello, this is very bad that, with lot`s of reading, this page was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.16.31 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please say which article? At the moment I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-created AfD

Just to notify you that a page you deleted after an AfD, Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS), has been re-created with reasons why it shouldn't be deleted.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it's already been deleted, but thanks for the heads up. Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, A good proof to you not to delete "Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)" is the following website which I forgot to put as a reference:

http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/2975/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjesfahani (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/2975/ a good reference not to delete "Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)".

http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/2975/

(talk page stalker) Is it similar to Apitherapy? Also can be added in Bee sting--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's already mentioned at Apitherapy, where a medical journal is used to say that tests were unsuccessful. Please read WP:MEDRS: sources such as the Daily Mail are not reliable sources for medical claims. If you want to have the article recreated your best bet is to create a draft at User:Mjesfahani/Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis and show that it has significant coverage in reliable medical journals. Then take it to WP:DRV. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

N–ANI RM

Heads up! A thread has been created in WP:ANI, Ignore it if you have already seen this Thread --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All For Nothing?

I saw that you recently closed a requested move discussion at All For Nothing? and moved the page. The original discussion was to move the article from All For Nothing? to All for Nothing?, which there is consensus for in the discussion. Unfortunately, while the discussion was ongoing the article was moved three times first to All For Nothing? (TV show), then to All for Nothing? (TV show) and then back to All For Nothing? (TV show) before you closed the discussion and made the move. So in essence, the article was not moved at all from its first request, so could you please move the article to All for Nothing? per the discussion request and consensus formed there? Aspects (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noticed this when I closed the RM. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it's fixed now. Jenks24 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncat bug

Thanks for the report. I can't reproduce the bug. I guess for some reason (network? Mediawiki changes?) for a moment AWB was unable to grab correct information from server. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. As long as it was just a once off it's not a problem. Very understandable – Mediawiki does some weird stuff every now and then. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Move over salt request

Jason Johannisen (footballer) is yet another article in a dabbed state that shouldn't be. Please move to the primary topic when you can. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Inktomi move

Thank you for taking care of the Inktomi move. I think this arrangement will make it easier for users to find the correct article. Nick Number (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are a sysop online at the moment...

Hi Jenks24. Mate, there seems to a little bit of aggro going on here. I've said my piece, but in the absence of a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for a little look, and perhaps a quiet word from someone with the buttons noticeboard, could you possibly have a little look? I don't think a quiet word is required just yet, though. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Hmmm, just had a read over it. I agree that there's no need to have a word with him yet, but I've watchlisted Pharaoh's talk page and will keep an eye on it for the next few hours. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers me old china. Fings woz gettin a bit tasty in iz gaff, an I fought I'd get on the dog and bone, innit? That's just swell. Peace, dude! Please do the needful, respected sir. Aaargh! I've completely lost track of what flavour of English I should be writing in.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scotch College

Regarding changes to Scotch College wiki. You recently removed the statement "Scotch, along with its Victorian rivals Geelong Grammar School and Melbourne Grammar School constitute Australia's three premier boys boarding schools". You cited the lack of a reference as a valid reason for removing this statement, however it is without question that footnote ix clearly stipulates that Scotch College & Geelong Grammar are the premier boarding schools of the nation (using the Order of Australia index provided by The Age newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.42.157 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Will reply at IP's talk. Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

move of 2007–2012 global financial crisis to Global financial crisis of 2008 (which is now a redirect)

I saw that you're at least the 2nd admin to turn down this move, and I'm wondering what the problem is. There's been a consensus on the move for a long time. It just seems that something procedural is hanging this up. There is no substantive reason not to make this move. May I ask you to WP:IAR? Smallbones (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones. I didn't turn down this move, I only made a procedural close of the second RM you started because starting a new RM is not the correct way to ask for an admin to close a discussion. I have glanced over the actual RM, but I haven't read it in full and make no judgement about the consensus. I'd suggest bringing this up with RegentsPark (talk · contribs) who did close the RM. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But I did ask on the talk page for the move to be completed and RedRose closed that saying that a Requested move was required. Perhaps I misread that, but it seems like a complicated procedure just to ask somebody to close it. On the other hand I did notice now that RegentsPark says he has substantive reasons for ignoring the 10-2 consensus. I don't have time now, but can you give advice on the correct procedure to file a move review? Smallbones (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Redrose's comment was incorrect. Basically, all requested moves awaiting closure can be seen at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog. As you can see, there are quite a lot of them. There are only a few admins who spend much time closing RMs and we are all volunteers, so as much as try to keep it manageable there are unfortunately times when discussions wait for quite a while in the backlog. If, in future, you feel that a RM has spent too long in the backlog, the solution is not to open a new RM, but to leave a neutrally worded request at WP:AN. Regarding the 10–2 votes, please note that WP:CONSENSUS is not based on votes, but strength of argument. The steps for starting a move review are laid out at Wikipedia:Move review#Initiating move reviews. If you have any questions about the steps feel free to ask. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Argentina and trafficking

Can you give me some advice about these two articles? Human trafficking in Argentina is purely cut and paste material copied from a U.S. government website. No explanations, no paraphrasing. But it does appear to be in the public domain, so no copyvio issues. It is also out of date, as it is based on a 2010 report and there are new reports available for 2011 and 2012. Trafficking in persons in Argentina is from the Spanish Wikipedia and I have just finished translating it. It seems to be well researched and well sourced, even if the sources are in the Spanish language. The better translation for this title would be "Human trafficking in Argentina", but the other article already has this title. Google also prefers this title. Could I request a speedy deletion of "Human trafficking in Argentina" based on "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)," then move the other article to that title? Or is it better to ask for an RM? Or maybe some other course of action? Thanks. Neotarf (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I had a look over the articles and agreed with your assessment of the quality, but content shouldn't really be deleted just because there is a superior version. What I've done is move the old Human trafficking in Argentina article to Talk:Human trafficking in Argentina/old, so that the history and content are preserved and bits can be merged to the new Human trafficking in Argentina article if anyone wants to. Hopefully this won't be controversial, but if someone does have a problem with it I might have to undo and take it to a full discussion. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I can't imagine why anyone would object - the recent legal changes there have attracted international attention, but there has been little published in English. I appreciate you taking a look. Neotarf (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your input in the discussion as well as your consideration for my perspective on things, and hope to see you again sometime. Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully I'll see you back there in a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports)

Nice comment about the number of edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports), but you obviously ignored the fact that the guideline was moved to its own page from Wikipedia:Article titles in 2009 and was subject to intense discussion at WT:FOOTY before it was formulated and posted to WP:NC. Just because the page has only had two edits in the last three years does not make it any less valid. I suggest that you remove that comment from Talk:Inter Milan to avoid skewing the debate unnecessarily. – PeeJay 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of thought, but I stand by what I said. It's not just the lack of edits, it's the lack of awareness of it. I would hazard a guess at saying I've participated in over 1000 RMs, often taking a special interest in sports-related ones, and this is the first time I've seen it mentioned. I see no evidence that it has community support, not to mention bits of it clearly contradict WP:AT. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that no one has mentioned it is nobody's fault, but the page is clearly linked in the sidebar at WP:NC under "Organizations", and now that you know it exists, it probably should be followed. – PeeJay 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was anyone's fault, I just don't think it has community consensus. You are free to disagree, of course. Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been included at WP:NC if it didn't have community consensus. – PeeJay 11:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Stuff is added there all the time that doesn't have community consensus. It is often reverted, but not always. In addition, the community's attitude towards official names has changed in the last three years. Often these sub-guidelines that no one uses are left behind. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet this one did have community consensus since it was formulated by (as I recall) endless discussions at WT:FOOTY. – PeeJay 12:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not think that would be enough – WP:FOOTY is not the community. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the community that matters in this issue. What does WP:MILHIST or WP:VG have to do with the naming of sports teams? – PeeJay 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, well there are other sports project besides FOOTY (though I think we may be getting a little off topic). Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ROTF .. good one.

LOL Generous to describe continually turning left as a "sport" :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Ched :  ?  14:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah, thanks. I hoped it might give you a chuckle. Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

link? :-) — Ched :  ?  17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Go fast - turn left. Go fast - turn left. Go fast - turn left. Geee .. I wonder what's gonna happen next? LOL — Ched :  ?  17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice link :) In NASCAR's defence, the crashes are spectacular (not in the good way, more in the "I can't look away" way) and can come out of nowhere. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Sigma Alpha Kappa Fraternity page

I was recently notified that the page for Sigma Alpha Kappa Fraternity was deleted. The Fraternity is still in force at Loyola University New Orleans and is significant to the history of the New Orleans area. We are not a single chapter fraternity, as there are two other chapters at Ferrum University and Emory and Henry University. We have an active web presence at here and are spoken of on Loyola's website here. I created a wikipedia account a long time ago and am unsure of how to un-delete. Please feel free to email me at andrewtpolandgmail.com. I was the President of the fraternity at one point and am now an alumni. I was notified by other alumni who were alarmed when, as we approach the beginning of the school year (which is a critical point for marketing to freshmen), no information was to be found. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to email me with any additional concerns or questions.

AndrewTPoland (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. As the deletion was via WP:PROD, your request here is enough for it to be undeleted and I will do so after posting this response. However, I should warn you that the page may be nominated for a more permanent deletion if it is unable to demonstrate that it is notable. Fraternities are not considered inherently notable, they must demonstrate that they meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), they key to which is showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Feel free to ask if you have any follow-up questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jenks is right on all counts. Please ensure that the article passes notability requirements: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Alpha Kappa (2nd nomination).--GrapedApe (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Blackpool F.C. seasons

checking the edit history, I see clear local consensus for WP:HLIST, so I went ahead and reconverted it. the constant reverts by one editor seem to be simple edit warring. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been meaning to get around to starting a discussion with the guy who kept reverting, but it slipped my mind. Seeing as you're now the fourth person to make the hlist change, hopefully that will make him think twice before reverting. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:RM#No_consensus_outcomes

Hi Jenks,

Could you be tempted to enage further at Wikipedia_talk:RM#No_consensus_outcomes?

You seem to have a reasonably open and balanced view, and you certainly have a lot of experience.

Your first revert was reasonable. At the very least, I can see that the reading of the word “default” can be very different to what I assumed. You second revert feels a bit strong. The reverted text seemed far less problematic, and I do think that the version you restored text is inconsistent with the policy. I also hope that you don’t really see my interest there as the starting of a “kerfuffel”. I might have been offended, but your userpage continues to force me to regard you with some affection.

You might be willing to make some comment what I think I have asserted, that Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus is not clearly consistent with Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I'm really sorry, I meant to discuss this with you further, but I've been swamped with work over the last few days (on a weekend, no less!) and haven't had the time. Also sorry about the use of "kerfuffel" – it was not meant to be negative and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you started it deliberately. I probably should have just written "disagreement". I should be able to reply to your comments at WT:RM (where, just glancing over them, I think you've made some good points) in the next 24 hours. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam titling saga continued

Do you have any advise or thoughts on this? Kauffner (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Made a short comment there, but to be honest I'm trying to avoid diacritics problems as much as possible because I feel my life slipping away when I do get involved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

IIO has an astonishing output on this issue must work at it like it's a full-time job. It's not really about diacritics. It's more about getting back at me. After all, I am a "major idiot" and all.[1] Did you see the statistics he's got? I certainly don't keep track of any of that. Now he's going back a full year into my edit history. Soon I'll be the most thoroughly investigated editor in the history of Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see Graeme has stopped making the moves. Yes, I have said as much to IIO, but he simply denies that's his motive. Nothing much you can do except grin and bear it, I'm afraid. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support of my RfA in spite of some of my earlier PRODs of Australian baseball articles. I look forward to maintaining your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. We might have disagreed once or twice, but it was always very easy to discuss things with you, so the decision to support your RfA was an easy one. Best of luck with the admin tools. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

of all the names that might need disambiguation...

I never thought that Rhys Cooyou (footballer) would need a qualifier! Pls do the usual. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 07:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Union Jack

Hi, Thanks for moving Union Jack. There seems to be a glitch with the green area that surronds the archived discussion. I am not sure how to fix it. Can you help please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yep, fixed now, thanks for letting me know. It was because someone had used references in the middle of the discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, i was looking at couldnt see anything. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix deleted page (prod)

Hello. I want to fix and expand the Pablo Machón article. Would you please restore it? Thanks.. Liberto699 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan

Sorry, but there are certain editors out there who have issues with WikiProject Football, for whatever reason. I'll refactor my comments though, they were admittedly hasty. GiantSnowman 11:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, well that's news to me and I don't think anyone who supports Inter Milan as the title is doing it just to have a go at WP:FOOTY, but you're of course free to disagree. Thanks for refactoring. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hailemariam Desalegn

Thanks for closing and processing the requested move of Hailemariam Desalegn. I notice there are interwiki links at the bottom. How are such moves normally propagated to those other wikis? Do they have lists of moves of inter-linked pages that someone processes there, or do they need to be told about the move (and how)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, neither of us need to do anything. At the moment they just link to the redirect and get to the en.wp page just fine. In time there are interwiki bots that fix even that. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. I thought they had their own local versions of those articles. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I had it drafted before his edit, in fact it was his edit that resulted in an (edit conflict) although I did see it before finally pressing enter. I'm leaving it. Striking it would be hypocritical. This is not the first time GS and other's have shown extreme partiality and bias. It is unacceptable to me as an ordinary contributor to find those with authority failing to assume good faith and instead demonstrating their own glaring bias and disregard for policy & process. If they can't follow policy without condemning editor's who disagree with them they shouldn't be using their tools in any football related topic. Leaky Caldron 12:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations of mis-deeds against me and others you disagree with - bias / impartiality / mis-use of admin tools. Those are serious, and unfounded, accusations. GiantSnowman 12:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I really think it would be for the best if you struck at least some of your comment (and I don't think it would be hypocritical at all). Everyone makes mistakes and GS has apologised. Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice which I genuinely appreciate since I know you to be even handed. I've been accused in a direct personal attack of being a hypocrite. That goes well beyond my generalised comments made in response to his original redacted remarks and my advice about being cautious about the areas they operate in. I've dropped the idea of referring his WP:NPA breach for wider consideration. He's an Admin. so it would achieve nothing, but that's as far as it goes I'm afraid. Rgds.

By the way, his remark about editors with issues about WP:FOOTY is almost certainly aimed at me since I have accused them of blatant breaches of WP:CONLIMITED in the way they claim consensus about stadium naming and infobox contents. Leaky Caldron 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaky Caldron 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My Apologies

Sorry mate. Had my nephew around who is a bit silly on the computer. He likes to play around with the Internet and I managed to get rid of most of what he had done. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.113.51 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for fixing things. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Jenks24, would you be able to semi-protect Nenê (footballer born 1981) please. There is a request at WP:RFPP (where this is backlog if you have some time to spare), but there is a lot of editing going on and I think it's moved into BLP range now. Once it's protected I'll restore it to a clean version, there is isn't much point when it'll continue being vandalised. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, done. I gave it 24 hours, but feel free to ping me again if it comes back when that wears off. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, there seems to be quite a bit around the place at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I assume it will die down once the transfer window closes. Jenks24 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Transfer window? I was referring, generally, to a number of pages and IPs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. I just did a quick Google search for this Nenê bloke and it appears that he may be moving teams in the next 24 hours (which is when the transfer window ends). I then assumed similar things may be happening to other football/soccer biographies. Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah I thought you may have been talking about something in the software. I haven't seen anything else on footballers pages, it's been everywhere, I thought my rollback button might burn out :). It has calmed down now. Thanks for your help with this one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, OK then. No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlinks after deletions

Hi, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante Santiago and deleted the article, but you overlooked checking for backlinks. The article was still linked from Template:The Black Eyed Peas, Template:The Voice UK (series 1) and The Voice UK (series 1). I've removed these links now, but please remove or redirect redlinks after deletions in future. Excuse my cheek if you normally do this but overlooked it for this page. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! – Fayenatic London 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I must have forgotten for that one. Thanks for fixing those. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

– Fayenatic London 14:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

possibly notable deleted article

G'day Mr J,

Whilst checking the list of articles to do (Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football/Players/ToDo) I noticed Jamie Cooper on the list. As well as the games for Fitzroy, he is the painter guy who does the historical team portraits for the AFL and it seems other teams too (http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-life/exfootballer-hits-home-run-20110215-1av5i.html). Are any of the deleted versions of Jamie Cooper about the same guy and worth expanding from, or should I just start from scratch? Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm afraid not. There are only two versions: an American actor and some kid from England. Happy to un-salt it if you want, though. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. If I decide to write it I'll sandbox it first and let you know when it's ready to be unsalted. The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hồng Bàng Dynasty

• Another issue. Another editor, with the Tibetan signature ༆, asked me to assist him on reverting this move implemented in good faith of course by your good self. I'd prefer to understand it before assisting him in taking it to RM, here Kauffner says to you I tried to db-move but that was reverted. What does that mean, it sounds like "I tried to db-move but that was reverted" - which means (0) 19:13, 11 August 2006‎ Typhlosion moved Hong Bang Dynasty to Hồng Bàng Dynasty: "Vietnamese tone marks are now supported by Wikipedia." (1) Kauffner moves the article with a dbmove, proxying 19:32, 13 August 2011‎ Anthony Bradbury as an "uncontroversial move", (2) the other editor, with the Tibetan signature ༆, reverts Kauffner's dbmove, (3) something happens which requires a 2nd dbmove, perhaps naturally as a consequence of move, perhaps the Tibetan editor ༆ himself deliberately locks the redirect, (4) Kauffner tries to move again by 2nd dbmove, (5) someone reverts that 2nd dbmove, or another admin refuses it? (6) Kauffner comes to you, and verbally requests you use your admin tools to find another way to move it without the trouble of a 3rd dbmove (6) you uphold Kauffner's earlier dbmove and instruct ༆ he must put in a RM to restore the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This may not be a correct reading, but "I tried to db-move but that was reverted" sounds like "I tried to db-move but that was reverted" - suggesting that edit (5) whatever it was, and whether it was by an admin rejecting a dbmove or whatever, has vanished into the ether. Do you have any idea what edit (5) was?

Don't take this personally, it's not a major issue, and I'm not getting at you, but an extra level of stress having now been added I'd like to be fully in understanding the article's history before I tie my name to the ༆'s RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the history of the article as I understand it: created at "Hong Bang dynasty" by an IP on 22 September 2005; moved by DHN to "Hong Bang Dynasty" on 22 April 2006; moved by Typhlosion to "Hồng Bàng Dynasty" on 12 August 2006; moved by Anthony Bradbury to "Hong Bang dynasty" on 14 August 2011; moved by ༆ to "Hồng Bàng Dynasty" on 3 July 2012; moved by Jenks24 to "Hong Bang dynasty" on 3 July 2012. The 14 August 2011 move was requested by Kauffner with a db-move. Seven hours after making the 3 July 2012 move, ༆ added {{R from title without diacritics}} to the redirect, blocking a non-admin revert. Kauffner then made a db-move request, which was reverted by ༆ with the edit summary "recently, the page Ottoman dynasty was moved to Ottoman Dynasty". As you can then see, Kauffner requested I revert ༆'s move and I did so. Hope this helps. Jenks24 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmm. I will see what ༆ wants to do. Restoring these has to be his RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Mind Eraser

I noticed your recent page move citing WP:THE as the reason. However, "The" is clearly in the name of the ride as indicated by the ride's sign (you can see it in a picture within the infobox of the article). Because it is part of the proper name, I believe it should be included and remain in the title. A similar example is The Beast at Kings Island. — GoneIn60 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I did notice the picture of the sign, but after doing some searching (see, for example, this gnews search and the Six Flags website) I found that, in running text, "the" is rarely capitalised. I thought it better to go with the reliable sources than the sign and so I moved the article. If you still disagree after this explanation, I'll revert my move and take it to RM. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out the mistake I made. It is only called The Mind Eraser at one park, Six Flags America. The other three parks do not use "The" in the title. That helps explain why only a fourth of the secondary sources I've come across have it capitalized. It is probably worth noting as an alternative title in the opening line, but for now the move seems to make sense. Please disregard! — GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes that does make more sense. Agree that it may be worth noting in the lead. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Daft

Hi Jenks. Thanks for blocking Daft's latest IP. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Jack. I know TRM and Dweller are pretty on the ball with this Daft stuff, but if for some reason they're unavailable, feel free to ping me. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Numerous Vietnam articles moved

IIO has just moved dozens of Vietnam-related geography articles. The edit summaries claim he is reverting my moves. These are the moves I made a year ago, i.e. this is the same issue that he has been shopping around for weeks to so many admins and so many forums. Not only that, but many are not really reverts since various unnecessary disambiguators have been added to titles. For example, Buon Ma Thuot has become Buôn Ma Thuột city, and Dien Ban District ‎ has been moved to Điện Bàn district. (Note the clever lower casing.) Kauffner (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add that IIO's current RMs at Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move and Talk:Lac_Long_Quan#Requested_move do not seem to be getting much traction, which may or may not have led to the use of this tactic. Kauffner (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd find Kauffner here. Jenks24 we had 3 RMs on VN place names, all 3 RMs support VN place names and instead we have the vast majority of VN places undiscussed moved and locked. That's merely mentioning the inconsistency between 3RM results pointing one direction and 1 User doing the exact opposite. That's without mentioning all the other hi-jinks, (i) deletion of "please stop" messages from Ajax Smack 06 Aug 2011, Gimmetoo, Prolog and who knows who else, then moving 900x articles under own logged in name, (ii) deletion of failed RM bot notices, (iii) use of Editing logged out in order to mislead, (iv) proxying admins by 600x G6 dbmove "uncontroversial move", (v) removing articles after having G6 refused - see Malik Shabazz on that one, (vi) locking redirects as got User Dolovis banned, (vii) straight out untruths - "I must add that the continued focus on moving articles I wrote to less desirable titles is both petty and vindictive." rather than "I must add that the continued focus on restoring articles which I did not contribute to at all", (viii)... and on and on.

Jenks24, if someone did all this (i) 1000s of undiscussed moves to French names, (ii) deletion of failed RM bot notices to promote French names, (iii) use of Editing logged out in order to promote French names, (iv) proxying admins by 600x G6 dbmove "uncontroversial move" to promote French names, (v) removing articles after having G6 refused, (vi) locking redirects after undiscussed moves to French names, you wouldn't be blessing them - it's acceptable behaviour. You certainly wouldn't be using your admin tools to help Kauffner enforce his undiscussed moves against other user's reverts as you did here, (what exactly happened there anyway?). You said when you became an admin you wouldn't use your tools/position to promote your own minority view on foreigners names.

What editors need is honesty, transparency, some moral fibre and principle, not finding ways to circumvent the results of RMs? I would urge you Jenks24, to use whatever influence you have on Kauffner to communicate that even for a just and right cause (against foreign names) the behaviours (i)-(vii) above are not things which you Jenks24 personally encourage Kauffner to continue. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I was careful to check, in each of the 80 or so reversions of undiscussed moves counter RM results I have made, that all were Kauffner, none were by any other editor. This leaves another 500 or 600 towns where Kauffner should be made to clean up his own moves counter RMs. Do you think he'll do that if you ask him? It should be him clearing up his own moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And on the subject of capitalizing Điện Bàn/Điện Bàn district/Điện Bàn district, Kauffner made so many inconsistent Dolovis style redirect edicts to lock his undiscussed moves that result is already a hotchpotch, undoing it is inevitably difficult, why do you think Kauffner's spent July protecting them? Jenks24, dip into any Vietnam geography category and random and try yourself restoring a handle of his undiscussed moves counter Talk:Cà Mau No.2 and you'll see what I mean. This should be your job, an admin who said he'd work in RMs should be supporting RM results not assisting editors who use any trick to contravene them. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This stuff is slowly driving me insane. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Requesting a moratorium on undiscussed diacritics-related moves to Vietnamese articles. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Private note:

You're asking questions that, IMO, do not accurately reflect the issue at hand. You knew the moves you recently made would be controversial, you knew Kauffner in particular would be very irritated by the moves (and, presumably, so will the [1 below] other 50% of editors who favoured non-diacritics), you knew Kauffner would complain to me about them, and [2 below] you probably also knew there was a reasonable chance this might end up at a noticeboard. I'm failing to see why you thought it would be a good idea. Your time would have been much better spent making a strong multi-move nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

underlined 1. I don't know where the 50% comes from. Things have moved on. Did you look at the result of the Talk:Dominik Halmosi RM? or Talk:Ca Mau. If you discount the editors known to be anti-diacritic who were canvassed by Kauffner for his recent RfC, it would not be 23 vs. 16, it would be 23 vs 7 or 8, even for Vietnamese diacritics. So please. Adjust the 50%. Only a tiny handful are against diacritics. And that's why we have RMs.

underlined 2. Actually I thought you'd have higher principles. I thought that deep down you know that Kauffner's behaviour is not cricket. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the naming conventions talk page, it looks roughly 50/50 to me. Skimming the discussion, Kauffner left notes for some editors, but so did Obiwankenobi, so I don't think it right to discount only one side. If your 23 vs. 16 value is correct, that's still 40%. Point 2: I'm unimpressed by the behaviour of both of you. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say this annoys me a little, you say "but so did Obiwankenobi/KarlB", on what basis do you say this? In fact what Obiwan/Karl did was merely go back to RMs from which Kauffner had only invited the antis, and invited all. Obiwan did not go off to WP:CONSERVATISM WP:CHINA or wherever and canvass, Obiwan actually cleaned up, and again, you seem unable to make any distinction between cheating and gaming - and simply being honest and fair - which is what Obiwan was being In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that I shouldn't be "discounting" any opinions because both sides have been notified. I honestly haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion on who did what and whether it was right or not. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Kauffner's Vietnamese RfC when KarlB took him to ANI? Please count again, even with the slanted proposal it is 23 vs 16, 23 vs 7-8 if the ones directly canvassed from WikiProkect:Conservatism and suchlike are removed. That isn't 50%, it is 20% on Ca Mau, 0% on Dominik Halmosi.

So please revise down your figure. It won't hurt you to claim 20% rather than 50%.

Another point which I just noticed: I very strongly object to you making a charge of "fait accompli." I do not do Dolovis-style redirect edits to secure my moves, as proof of that to you, I have just moved (In ictu oculi moved page Phú Ninh District to Phu Ninh District over redirect: self-reverted to demonstrate that no redirect-edit locks involved) (undo). Compare to Kauffner's redirect-edit activity in July. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take your word and revise to 40%. Regarding fait acompli, I was just quoting the ArbCom finding and pointing out that both of you have made mass-moves. Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, you made it sound as I've been doing what Kauffner's been doing. You made it sound as if we have been doing the same thing. Why did you do that? You know that I do not lie, I do not IP, I do not do dbmoves and I do not lock redirects. As much as we disagree on foreigner's names, I'm rather disappointed that you don't discern some principles in behaviour. Oh well. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You've both made mass-moves, that is what I was saying and that is what I said. If you read something else into that, then I apologise but it was not what I meant. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's not much point in reiterating again the difference between an undiscussed move against a RM, and a revert of an undiscussed move against an RM.

As regards your use of admin tools to accomplish the 2nd removal of Vietnamese diacritics from the dynasty article below: The 2nd dbmove which Kauffner said someone reverted is now a dead link 500408374. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm just saying I think they're both disruptive and shouldn't have been done. As I explain in the section below, that's a dead link because it was deleted. The db-move Kauffner requested was reverted by ༆. If an admin had declined it, I would not have used my admin tools to make the move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is reverting an undiscussed move counter to 3 RMs "disruptive"? Disruptive to what exactly? It's not disruptive to the result of the RM, it's not disruptive to those who expressed a view, it's not disruptive to the editors who created those 800 geo articles with Vietnamese spellings - which is 20 or 30 editors, from familiar article stalwarts like Dr Blofeld through to Vietnamese editors. So you have 20 or 30 articles creators, you have 10 or 20 people participating in RMs, and how exactly is it "disruptive" to them to see their edits, article creations and RM decisions upheld?

Can't you see the difference between:

(A) upholding RM decisions and having yet-another RM on one hand, and

(B) subverting RM results using undiscussed moves, IPs, dbmoves, talk-page deletes, fait accompli redirect locks?

To whom exactlty is it "disruptive" to be upholding RM decisions and reverting moves counter them? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive because you are causing a disruption (see this discussion, AN, etc.) by doing it. It has disrupted several hours of my life and, presumably, others. I fear discussing this with you is futile, as we really don't seem to be on the same wavelength, but here goes: you are essentially doing the same thing as Kauffner did a year ago. He had a RM or two go the way he wanted and then mass-moved articles, citing said RMs. You have done the exact same thing. The one thing that can be said about Kauffner's moves is that he may have genuinely believed what he was doing would be uncontroversial (and perhaps not, I'm no mind reader), but you definitely did know that doing this would be controversial. Are you saying that all the articles you moved were created at the diacritics version? Because of the several that I checked, most had not, and had been moved to the diacritic title with an undiscussed move. So, well you say you are just reverting undiscussed moves and cite RMs in support of what you, Kauffner could make the exact same claim (and, basically, did) a year ago. I get that in your mind you see yourself as "upholding" RM decisions, but please also try to understand that Kauffner probably thought the same thing a year ago. Lastly, even if we take every accusation you make about Kauffner as true, can you not see that just because you have followed the rules, or have been ethical, or are just are genuinely better person, you can still do things that are disruptive? Do you not get that your justification for causing this disruption has essentially been "but Kauffner has been more disruptive"? Two wrongs do not make a right. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would seem from the above that IIO is obsessed with figuring out which V-pop singer I wrote about. So here is the big reveal: It's Toc Tien, a current teen favorite. IIO has proposed moving her article to Tóc Tiên (singer) as part his list at Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move. I consider this to be a "less desirable title" even if you disregard the issue of diacritics. As far as my earlier moves go, aren't geography titles supposed to conform with WP:PLACE? None of the authorities recommended there use Vietnamese diacritics. The RMs we are talking about were not archived or otherwise made available for use as precedents. The only reason IIO knows about some "no consensus" RM from last year is because he researches my edit history. There have been a lot of RMs in the last year, and they have gone both ways. Kauffner (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• I note the RM at Talk:Cà Mau was advertised as "housekeeping" to restore the earlier "no consensus" Can Tho RM, but it gets used here as a precedent all the same. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• The comments here suggest that the tennis player names-with-diacritics wars were deliberate overriding by In ictu oculi of Wikipedia guidelines (and caused MakeSense64 to quit Wikipedia for an indefinite period—he still has not returned). This sort of nastiness and fanaticism is not good for Wikipedia, and not good for retention of capable editors. Surely article titles should be decided by Wikipedia policies, facts, and logic, rather than by the number of cronies—armed with tennis rackets or hockey sticks—one can bring to an RM. LittleBen (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)