User talk:Jenks24/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Cetaganda

Thanks for the move! I'd totally forgotten about that one. Now I just need to fix all the links... Euchrid (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ștefan Kovács

Hi! Pls help me! There is a anon user who always delete Ștefan Kovács Hungarian's name (István Kovács) from the infobox. Stefan Kovács was Hungarian and normally used to his native name. Absolutely logical thing to indicate this name in the infobox like several another any artcile. Thanks. - Csurla (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Csurla did not provide any source that the native name of Kovács was István and not Ștefan. The form István Kovács, just like the form Ștefan Covaci is given between parentheses in the lead section, I think this is enough. We don't have to write these two alternative names in the infobox too

In addition, Csurla is wikihounding me . He is following me at articles never edited by him before, just to revert me [1] 79.117.184.208 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not true. As you find here this page shows that you follow my steps. - Csurla (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference. I intervened here to defend myself because you mentioned me and my edits, while at the article Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you stalked me just to revert my edit, without offering any edit summary. 79.117.179.240 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In any Hungarian sources Stefan Kovács is Kovács István. In 1920 after the frist World War Romania acquired a several part of Hungary with several Hungarians. The Romanian Power forbidden the Hungarian names and forced the Romanian. Changed Kovács to Covaci, and István to Stefan. It's a history. - Csurla (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to include in the infobox the forms of that player's name in all languages. Just his real (birth) name, which is Ștefan Kovács 79.117.184.208 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cetaganda

Did the history at Talk:Cetaganda get deleted when the move was made? Apteva (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on MS Surface.) Tuntable (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Palmyra, New York

Greetings. I just noticed your close of the move discussion of this page. Can you please revise that decision in light of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns. The disambiguation project previously reached the consensus that in cases such as this one, the enveloping geographic area would be considered "primary" because anything occurring in the contained village would literally be occurring within the containing town. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From Noon till Three vs. From Dusk Till Dawn

I'd still like to hear from you about this. (I also tried to contact UnQuébécois, but that account is blocked due to asserted sockpuppetry) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interchange

Please consider once again relisting the deletion and letting us know in the community (you can email our mailing list at interchange-users@icdevgroup.org) so that we can provide our input in the discussion this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.110.160 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask that my name be added to the list asking that interchange be relisted. I am one of the end users of interchange and find that removing the listing can only deter more users from joing the interchange group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2b3kb (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Interchange

Hello it has been brought to my attention that the Wikipedia page for Interchange is pending deletion. As a member of this community and a daily user of this software for over 10 years, I would ask that you please reconsider. Thank you in advance for you time and consideration in these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexfusion (talk • contribs) 11:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Undelete interchange page

Please relist it for further discussion. I work with interchange from 1999.

95.252.247.64 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Marco Mescoli m.mescoli@omnib.it

Interchange

I am here also to ask you to reconsider the deletion. As a member of the Interchange community I have to say that this should not be deleted and also that we are using Interchange since 2001 until today and that I have plans to use it for another decade here in Brazil, at least. Please reconsider it. Luiz Carlos Maciel Junior lmacielj at terra.com.br — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.207.13.186 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We still use Interchange. Our company has used interchange for many years and we still do. We also still recommend interchange as a viable platform for many internet related tasks. Interchange was an important part of the e-commerce phenomenon and played a major role in the OSS arena. Please consider re-listing the interchange page, it is an important part of the overall history and evolution of ecommerce/Perl/Linux.

Marty Tennison - marty@dripdepot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.251.29 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Interchange

Please reinstate the Interchange Wikipedia page. I have been using the software for 10 years and will continue to use it for many years to come. - Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.135.125 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Interchange

It was just noted by someone in our community (Interchange) that the Interchange page was deleted a couple of months ago. It appears to have gone two rounds of discussion and yet no one in our community was contacted or notified during this process so we did not get a chance to provide input into the discussion. The reasons for deletion was missing notability, no references from reliable sources and it was commented that, "couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability". Surely if our community had been contacted we could have provided a number of links to establish notability such as the following (not exhaustive): http://www.techrepublic.com/article/red-hat-suite-makes-e-commerce-easy/1031400 http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000121501406PSCYSW

Please consider once again relisting the deletion and letting us know in the community (you can email our mailing list at interchange-users@icdevgroup.org) so that we can provide our input in the discussion this time.

--edit: I just pinged Bushranger to see if he can help. Pajamian (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

--Pajamian (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I second this request. Interchange also received print publication reviews in the 2000-2003 timeframe. I find it interesting that the Russian Wikipedia page cited more original sources and thus may've been a better-written article: http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/Interchange

--Jon Jensen, jon@icdevgroup.org, 2012-12-01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.136.109.42 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Interchange runs stores that have logged billions of dollars in sales, and continue to rack up (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars in sales annually. (Disclosure: I am the original author of Minivend and major author of Interchange.) As Minivend, it was a groundbreaking application-server style store software unlike others on the market. It attracted a fair amount of press coverage, and has been continuously used for over 17 years. It has had many thousands of worldwide installations, and continues to be used in a major way to sell products of diverse companies and organizations including IBM, the US government, and many best-of-category small business stores. -- Mike Heins, mike@icdevgroup.org 2012-12-01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckyj57 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I second this request as well. Interchange is running successfully for business and government sites all other the world. It was covered in Linux-Magazin and I did a bunch of talks about in on several Perl/Linux conferences. Racke (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I second this request. I currently use Interchange to run a number of sites including a customized distributed management system for the City of Montpelier, Vermont. -- Rick Bragg rbragg@gmnet.net 2012-12-03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.178.166 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Interchange

Hi. We have built numerous websites on Interchange and used it on some very prominent projects. Admittedly it hasn't been marketed the best for the last few years but it is still a very important software. Please reconsider returning the page. -- JureKodzoman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.210.253 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)First, if you think a page has been deleted in error, you need to contact deletion review to build a consensus for restoration. Secondly, while it may be true that there are a number of Interchange users on Wikipedia who wish the page to be recreated/restored, the barrage of comments above could give the impression of the use of multiple IPs to give the appearance of a false consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rogent Lloret

Hello. You have deleted page Rogent Lloret, if it is possible to return page I would like to try making it worth being on wikipedia :) Master Sun Tzu _{User talk:Master Sun Tzu} 01:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mitchumch (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Air21 Express (2011-present)#Requested move

Hi. It's been 6 months since the RM ended but it still hasn't been moved. Can something be done about this? Thanks. –HTD 15:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPA listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IPA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:IPA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Weihang7 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Interchange (software)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Interchange (software). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pajamian (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Give it Away

I have requested to move Give It Away back to its original location. Please give input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

It looks like this discussion involved you, but no one notified you. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

replacement of hash sign with "No."

LTNS! Do you think such replacement would be covered by "minor typographical changes"? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

01632

Hi, just dropped in to add a redirect at Talk:01632 that needs to be on 01632. If I need to go via the official move process I'll fix that up later in the day. Hope you're having a great Christmas. -- 80.42.229.68 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Saab

I hope you don't mind, but I have reverted a few of your edits in templates concerning Saab. In those templates you had replaced Saab Automobile by Saab. Unfortunately, Saab is a disambiguation page. Unknowingly, I hope, you had created about 60 links to disambiguation page. The Banner talk 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Marco79 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sifu William Lai

Is there any way to recover the "Sifu William Lai" page. I didn't realise it was put up for deletion. The reason for deletion appears top be "No evidence of meeting"

I wrote the page on behalf of my Sifu to record his training under Grand Master Chu Shong Tin and his own teaching in the Sheffield area. He trained under Grand Master Chu for 7 years. Grand Master Chu openly and publicly accepts that William Lai was one of his students taught to master level before he left Hong Kong to train his own students in England. There is no dispute of this and Master Lai is still in contact with Grand Master Chu and still regularly visits Hong Kong and meets with him. Master Lai was added to the Wing Chun Archive (a list the Wing Chun masters of the world http://www.wcarchive.com/html/sifus/wing-chun-sifus-w.htm) with his lineage clearly stated as Yip Man -> Chu Shong Tin -> William Lai, meaning he is a 2nd generation down from Yip Man via GM Chu. It is not a fact in any doubt. As a 3rd generation student myself I would be accepted into GM Chu's training school with a letter from my Sifu as he is openly recognised as a master of the Chu Shong Tin lineage training students in GM Chu's style. GM Chu only trains people of his lineage/style so this would be impossible if Sifu Lai was not accepted as one of his students.

http://www.wingchun.me.uk/

The Chu Shong Tin Ving Tsun Alumni was set up by GM Chu and his staff to record all of the students of his lineage. Sifu Lai is listed as "黎錦興 LAI Kam Hing, William" (Kam Hing being his Chinese name) as am I (Karl Buckland). This serves as a record of our acceptance as being of the Chu Shong Tin lineage. http://www.cstalumni.hk/membership_directory_2011.php

Fooboo (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fooboo (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 

WHY deleted

PLS dont deleted this page as i hav taken to put infomation abt the actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna123 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PC World vs. PCWorld™

Hello, I see you were involved in the move of "PCWorld (magazine)" to "PC World" on 2012-10-07. This same page had been previously moved from "PC World (magazine)" to "PCWorld (magazine)" on 2012-03-08 by User:SF007. I believe an accurate interpretation of, and in the spirit of, WP:MOSTM would be to have this page moved back to either "PCWorld (magazine)" or "PCWorld". I have, accordingly, created a new comment on the discussion page of the current location here. I appreciate your comment and participation in the discussion there.
Thanks in advance, Enquire (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

faeids

To whom it may concern;

Apparently you are the individual who deleted an article on wikipedia i used for a college research paper and now my professor is giving me issue with it because she can't check my references. Please help. I need the content from this article. I actually interviewed some of the faeids that are part of the community that was written about and their web site is currently down so wanted to re-read the references in the article. Is it archived somewhere? why was this deleted. I am a ethnographer in an anthropology course doing research on these people. You killed my gateway into this obscure alternative community. Please help.

Thanks greatly.

Jamie Ralston jamie.t.ralston@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.34.80.88 (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:An American in Paris

It's been nine months since the opposition outweighed support. Should I make a new request now, or how many more months must I wait? --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm back (I hope)

In case anyone still watches this page, sorry I've been away for the last few months but I should be back editing at least semi-regularly from now on. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Glad that you're back! I thought you had disappeared for good. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Yeah, just "real life" stuff getting in the way unfortunately, but I should have some more time now. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't overdo it on your first day back on the job, like working until 3 am, else burnout beckons! ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Hah, I was thinking that exact thing last night. With the beauty of hindsight, I guess I shouldn't have picked such a big RM to close for my first day back but I didn't think it would take that long... Jenks24 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey- I saw you deleted the talk page for the Cricket and Englishness page-- sorry about that, I was trying to create a project page and misplaced the colon. I corrected the mistake. The professor wants to keep things low-key for now because this is all new to him and his students, but feel free to check it out Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness Oline73 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Just FYI, if you want a page you created to be deleted you can place {{db-author}} on it. Looks like an interesting class, I'm a cricket fan (was just at a game today actually), but can't say I'm so keen on the Poms :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the tip!Oline73 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I'll decline. I have no knowledge of photography or the subject and, skimming over the discussion, most of the technical-sounding terms people are using are flying over my head. I hope the discussion ends with a clear consensus, but I don't think I'd really be able to add anything constructive. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

John Butcher

Year of birth is the standard way of dab for footballers - there must be many more examples of that method than by nationality, and anyway, is there any evidence that his 'nationality' is 'English'? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there are more cases with year of birth than nationality, but I don't think there's any benefit in blindly following a convention if it disservices the reader. As to his Englishness, he was born in England and has spent his life there, I'm not sure what more evidence we need. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You probably didn't see my reward board post; you were probably just doing your job. But nevertheless, you've made a significant contribution toward clearing the RM backlog. Thanks! BDD (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel a bit guilty that I haven't been around the last few months, but it's nice to see my return has had an impact. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Flying Dutchman

To close the move request as no consensus was easy. It will not change that there is no consensus on the topic. Did you see that Michael Bednarek moved from oppose to support, based on "The Grove"? Did you see that naming by such authorities is desirable? Common people name the opera "The Flying Dutchman", The Grove and The Metropolitan Opera use the name that the author created, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. I don't think the decision was easy at all, it took me reading over the discussion twice before I came to my conclusion. I did notice that Michael Bednarek changed his position. I hadn't seen that diff at the classical music talk page, but it doesn't make me change my mind. I know that Grove is an authority in the field and that does carry weight, but the impression I took away from the debate was still that The Flying Dutchman is the common name. In case you were unaware and want to pursue this further, RM closes can be contested at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRMOS

I'm not officially contesting these because I've been away for a few months, but has there been some sort of centralised discussion where the consensus was that adding these diacritics is no longer controversial? If so, could you please link it? If not, then I'd contest these as needing a full discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There was discussion on the last two groups of French names RMs. Ask Joy ask BDD, but as you say, you've been away. WP:FRMOS is well established if you want to challenge it feel free. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've pulled them and put them in RM. Unfortunately not able to hang around the computer waiting for reply. Your comment is still there, so can still be answered, context will be clear from history. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed your comment at RM/TR too. RMs to add native-name diacritics have passed so consistently over the last 9 months or so that some users, myself included, have advocated treating them as uncontroversial. Now, my wording ("treating as") is deliberate—it's not quite accurate to say these moves aren't controversial. Some editors have steadfastly opposed such moves, but they get outvoted and recently haven't even been showing up. It's getting to the point where floating all of these for a week or more feels like an exercise in bureaucracy. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the info guys. Sorry to put you out, IIO, if this has been uncontroversial for you for the last couple of months -- I was genuinely curious, not trying to make anyone's life harder. For future reference, I won't be contesting any more of these at RM/TR (I'd stopped bothering to comment in diacritics RMs even before I took a break from WP), but I probably won't be processing them either. One more question: is this just for French dios or all of them? I can't imagine, say, Vietnamese dios becoming uncontroversial, but you never know. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We haven't really seen anyone object to a modern European since Talk:Dominik Halmoši. Vietnamese is really the only Latin alphabet where support at RfC (23:10) doesn't translate into support showing up at RMs. My interest has always primarily been BLPs. 100 tennis players still have "Björn Borg, known professionally as Bjorn Borg" style leads, but this I think is a bit of a trophy edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

moving Miloš Marković

Please see Talk:Miloš Marković. Yes, I was derelict and didn't respond to a query that came 8 days after mine and 3 days ago... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, noted... It doesn't change my decision, though. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radio Wave 96.5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simply the Best (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor typographical change

Just wanted to touch base with you on a small issue: I notice that in quite a few Indian articles, editors and sources alike keep a space between the currency name (Rs. or ₹) and the number amount. MOSNUM states that there ought not to be a space. So, do I leave them alone in titles? Or would it be acceptable in your eyes do like in this edit? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems like it would be a minor typographical change to me, I can't see changing "$ 40" to "$40" being a problem so I wouldn't think this would be. That said, I don't know much at all about Indian practices for currency so if an Indian editor gives a reasonable explanation for why you shouldn't do it, then I'd leave off or start a discussion at WT:MOSNUM or the like. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, there is no objection to this. But there is on the issue of whether we should be using crore/lakh or not; then there's the potential issue of the spacing of their comma separators. I've posted to WT:MOS about it, if you're interested. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

I called that song a hoax because it's not even that artists song it must be from an unauthorized compilation or something so if you want to tag it for deletion feel free to. Koala15 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had a bit of a look and I agree with you. I've deleted it. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Paganism (contemporary)

Thanks for catching this! It seems that name value has been wrong for a long time.  —Sowlos  19:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Though I only noticed it because I tried to edit it using the 'e' and it didn't work properly. Jenks24 (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for the redirect help the other day. I've got one more to post shortly. -- 79.67.242.242 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'm online at the moment, so post it here or at technical requests – whichever suits you. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Posted at TR. -- 79.67.242.242 (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ever quick service. Continuing from last week... In the early days I wasn't aware of AFC. While I can see that it's slightly more technically correct to do it that way, there's a disadvantage in going that route. Many of the redirects I created, especially those from a year or two back, needed to be placed in various public or admin categories. AFC requests don't allow categories to be stated. This means the page has to be re-visited after creation to add those categories. Additionally, it looks like many AFC requests often take days or weeks to be processed. I rapidly lose interest when the process is slow or takes multiple steps. On the other hand, using RM allows the whole thing to be created in one go with the categories already in place and the request is usually processed within minutes to hours. The requests are reviewed by someone and the moves are all logged so I can't see a major problem with it. In any case, there are unlikely to be many more now. The majority were done years ago, there's just the odd one or two per year to add nowadays. -- 79.67.242.242 (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it's interesting (I hadn't really thought about the categories). I know last week I said this wouldn't be the way I'd do it if I were an IP, but now I think about it some more I'm not sure if there's any other way I'd go – as you say, AFC does have a reputation for often taking quite a while (I've never used it myself). There's of course nothing wrong with the way you're doing it, but I can see why some others were a bit unsure because it is quite unusual. I'm not sure there are any other IPs who create redirects in talk space and then ask for them to be moved, though I could well be wrong, and there are plenty of IPs who do create articles in talk space and then ask for them to be moved. In any case, I'm always happy to do these moves so feel free to drop me a note on the off chance you have a request declined in future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The few times there's been a problem, I think it was simply where editors saw an orphaned talk page without a corresponding article, or saw a redirect from a talk page to a different article, and without thinking it through just deleted it as junk. Last week someone proposed "creating a redirect on the article page, and deleting the talk page" seemingly completely unaware that that was exactly what the requested move was going to achieve. In any case, unless a bunch of countries change name or something, I can't see there being many more of these. The latest was only needed because someone had recently modified one of the country list templates. I now see that the template edit has been reverted, but the redirect is still useful should that revert ever be overturned in the future. -- 79.67.242.242 (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, going through C:SD I often see talk pages that have been tagged for deletion unthinkingly when they are pretty decent articles that have been created there by IPs. Most admins are pretty switched on though, so I don't think too many get deleted that shouldn't, but it must be annoying for whoever made the page. Going off on a bit of tangent, but that's arguably Wikipedia's biggest failing at the moment – communicating to new or inexperienced editors in robotic templates. Anywho, nice to see you're still around. Maybe one day I'll convince you to create an account :) In the meantime, thanks for all the work you've done on these 'Telephone numbers in X' articles. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens

Please help moving back the articles, following the procedurally closed.Fizikanauk (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like the article is already located at what was the long-term stable title. If you want the article moved, start a new RM. Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And what Fizikanauk deliberately overlooks is the fact that Energiya violated procedural norms by closing when he himself is not in the very least neutral W.R.T. naming. Typical deception (I don't think honesty is in their vocabulary) by Taiwanese/Fujianese. GotR ^Talk 14:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please strike or remove your second sentence. Regardless of whether what Energiya did was acceptable, it is in no way OK for you to make broad derogatory statements about about a race of people. I can't really believe I'm having to tell you this – it goes as much for Wikipedia as it does for real life. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article was located in Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens for six months, but GoR did the mess two days ago and now it is in Visa requirements for Republic of China citizens.Fizikanauk (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On further examination, you are correct. I have moved the article back to Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jello listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jello. Since you had some involvement with the Jello redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Ryan Vesey 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ambox CSS classes

You closed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ambox CSS classes as "no consensus"; yet everyone commenting was in favour of a new name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just felt there was no consensus on what the new title should be. I was hoping really anyone else would participate (that's why I relisted), but as it is any decision I made other than no consensus would be a supervote. I did try leaving it open for as long as I thought was reasonable, but it's been a month and a half now. I hope this explains things, but if you want I will reopen it and we can see if another admin comes to a different decision. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your dilemma, but would be grateful if you would reopen, please - the current name is an embarrassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Akello Light

Hello, I have just re-posted a article on the artist, "Akello Light". Since I know the process already, I wanted to point out the areas that are now fix from the previous upload.

1.No nontrivial coverage in multiple sources I have added two more sources:

http://www.urb.com/2013/03/27/72-soul-fools-play-ep-download-limited-edition-vinyl-contest-inside/#more-86087

http://thefindmag.com/news/support-72-souls-she-likes-to-play-indiegogo-campaign/

2. MadmanBot Yes, this is one of my rough drafts. I did write this. http://wikibin.org/articles/akello-light.html You can even look back in the history of the former post and realize this.

Let me know if everything is proper or not, Have a great day

§Sirleak (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Not too sure why you're telling me this, but feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Move of Air21 Express (2011–present)

Please see my comment on a current request at WP:RM/TR. You closed the previous move discussion in June 2012. Perhaps you have an idea for sorting this out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Talk:Air21 Express (2011–present)#Proposed move to Air21 Express. If you believe this qualifies as a technical move, feel free to close it without further ado. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do remember this RM and I'll look into it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett

You might wish to verify my paraphrasing of Jimbo's statement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Brand New

Hi - thanks for being brave and wading through the mess at Talk:Brand New (disambiguation). Would you mind elaborating a bit on your process? In particular, why you think Noetica's analysis was worth anything? I thought I showed pretty clearly that his methods did not show anything, despite their volume. Just because he said that he refuted my debunking doesn't mean it's so. He's a smart cookie, and tenacious, but he never showed a statistically significant correlation among COCA hits, Rolling Stone cites, and pageviews, especially for bands with relatively low RS hits. And without that, his argument boiled down to "'Brand new' is a popular phrase; I've never heard of this band from Long Island; therefore most people must be looking for the phrase and not the band." Note, by the way, that I never said that all or a majority of the pageviews were intended for the band; all I showed is that it is statistically plausible, and that anyone wanting to move away from the status quo should have the burden of showing why a move is an improvement. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dohn. I'm really sorry to do this to you, but it's 2.30 AM where I am and I just don't have the time right now to give you the detailed response you deserve. I should be back on Wikipedia in ~18 hours and the first thing I do will be to give you a proper reply. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I'm familiar with WP lag time. Take your time - I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Dohn joe (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad that Noetica retired, so now he isn't around to help clean up all the links to disambiguation. Would have been nice if someone had noticed the issue back in the 2004-05 timeframe, as I'm sure bumping the band off of primary topic would have been a lot easier back then. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• While other websites use SEO to bring in as many readers as possible, Wiki introduces unnecessary disambiguators for the express purpose of driving them away. I don't have any interest in this band myself. But this tells readers who are that it is an unworthy topic, like we are holding our nose when we present it to them. Kauffner (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I thnk that your edit summary is a bit mean and unfair. Sure I can see you disagree with the move, but the logic of your interpretation is simply faulty; it's a value judgement on your part. All the dab tells visitors is that there may be other meanings to the generic term 'brand new'. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ohconfucius. Page views of Brand New (band) / Brand New (band)(redirect) hardly show that any readers have been "driven away." Rather, they show how high the bar has been set for a determination of "wp:Primary topic" based on usage. It seems the MediaWiki software does use some form of search engine optimization (see also WP:SEO), when it presents the "top ten" "search suggestions" when I type "Brand New" into the search box. I'd like to know how the software creates this list:
    1. Brand New (band)
    2. Brand New Heavies
    3. Brand New Eyes
    4. Brand New Key
    5. Brand New Day (Sting album)
    6. Brand New Sin
    7. Brand New Cadillac
    8. Brand New World
    9. Brand New War
    10. Brand New Funk

The band is #1 on the list, which would seem to be a prerequisite for primary topic based on usage. No other Brand New (disambiguation) item cracks the top ten. I can only conclude that either the long-term significance criteria neutralizes the usage criteria, for this title, or All pages with titles beginning with Brand New is included when determining usage. There is no primary topic for this title, because of the long-term significance and enduring notability and educational value of the marketing term "brand new," even though Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on the topic, or "more likely than all the other topics combined" includes All pages with titles beginning with Brand New in the other topics list. It seems clear that this is a case where there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (the band) and one of primary long-term significance (marketing term), and consensus determines whether the band is the primary topic. Then there is the question of how high the bar is set on consensus. I think it's supposed to be significantly more than a simple majority of !votes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was getting 1,400 views a day before the move, and now its getting 250 views a day. Unless you can show that the missing 1,150 readers a day are now happily going to another Wiki article, I think that can be fairly described as "driving readers away." I don't see how they could be going to an article on the generic term, since we don't have such an article. There is a song named "Brand New", as well as three albums with this name, but they get only 5-7 readers a day each. Kauffner (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's yet another subjective (and rather superficial, no offence) interpretation of the search result. You don't credit the average reader with any intelligence or determination, that they would stumble at the first hurdle and then say 'blow it'. It's equally if not more plausible that they used to search for and but found it wasn't what they were looking for. Now, they type in the search box (or google) and know straight away, that the band article isn't what they were after, obviating a 'wasted' page hit. Nothing would account for the large proportion of 'disappeared' clicks: readers don't just evaporate. The band article appears clearly as one of the possible alternatives in the undisambiguated page 'brand new', that the reader genuinely looking for the band article would click just once more, and 'presto'. The new page locations, instead of deterring readers, is actually helping them to find the article they are after with greater speed or otherwise wastes less of their time. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My point was just that the move has caused readership to decline, which you are not really challenging. Why has it declined? If you google "Brand New", you'll see that the DAB has retained the google rank earned by article when it was at the "brand new" lemma. So readers click on this result expecting an article, but get a DAB instead. These readers have never seen a DAB before and have no idea what to do with one. So they back out and try something else. There are plenty of results about this band. Wiki is not the universe. If we don't give the readers what they want, they'll go to the next site on the list. Kauffner (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Google doesn't react quickly to our moves. Give it some time, and Brand New (band) will float to the top of Google's results, I'm pretty confident of that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying or agreeing with you at all that 'readership' has declined. You made the logical leap from 'clicks' to 'readers', and assumed that all those who landed on the band article wanted to be there, but I'm saying that does not necessarily equate. I'm more interested in overall optimisation – sending more readers to where they want to go in the fewest mouse-clicks, and that may mean some readers will get there with more and some with fewer clicks; it may also mean they will realise quicker what they are looking for isn't here and they will have to go look elsewhere. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As primary topic Brand New was getting about 1,400 daily views. This included some readers looking for something other than the band, who needed to click the hatnote to go to the dab. Post-move the number of views of the Brand New dab is about 900. To me this seems to indicate a ratio of about 500 views of "all the other topics combined" vs. 900 views of the band, a clear indication of primary topic based on usage. Consistent with this, in the first 4–5 days post move, Brand New (band) was getting ~900 views. Then on April 8, Dohn joe created Brand New (band)(redirect), a clear measure of clicks for the band on the dab page, and this gets ~700 daily views, leaving the band with a little over 200... seems that redirects aren't double-counted. The band is still getting about 900 daily views. 7 of 9 get there by search, then clicking the first item on the dab. 2 of 9 land there by internal links from other Wikipedia articles. No one's been driven away, they've just been rearranged. Arguably we have saved a click for readers who were not looking for the band, at the expense of forcing an extra click from readers who were searching for the band. Since the latter outnumbers the former, more readers "time is being wasted" now. But in the long term, more readers time will be saved, since the marketing term has greater long-term significance. Maybe someone will eventually serve these educationally-minded readers by actually writing an article on the topic. - Wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• oic. That would mean that the decline in readership was from 1,400 a day to 950 a day. That's a big change in the math, but I think the general point I was making is still valid. Kauffner (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Again, all one could say was that the number of clicks has declined. And although it is often generally assumed that the two are directly related/correlated, the ambiguity here means that relationship may not hold true, so i would not be fair to make any inference about 'readership'. By changing the names, and thus reducing that ambiguity, in the not too distant future, we will get a true picture of where those hits were intended. So WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself does not always work to the best of the project. Disambiguated namespaces, however would allow proper data production and analysis, to the overall benefit to the project. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Discussion moved to Talk:Brand New#Post-move discussion. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)