User talk:Jenks24/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

REQUISTION TO UN DO THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE ' Thomas Rathnam"

Dear..

I found as an Admin and well experienced person, recently , you have deleted the wiki page of 'Thomas Rathnam"/

"Thomas Rathnam" wiki page is hosted in the Wikipedia site more than a year.

It had many reliable links. Most of them are genuine. And those links are third party web links. So, as you said it is not proclaiming self promotion.

As I said , Up coming person means.. he had already achieved few things and trying to achieve more. It doesn't means he achieved nothing. His films are released in theaters and his albums also released in TV channels. So, he is a notable person already.

Due to the notability of that person, so many editors , edited the page. May be few more things referred his recent projects. If you feel those paragraph's not meet out the guidelines, ask the editor to delete it or update it.

so, Please undo the delete and re host the wiki page.

Even , i can once again check the wiki page and edit it as per the guide lines.

Seeking your guidance to host the wiki page again.

Hope you will consider my obligation.

--Praisewinner (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. Again, take it to WP:DRV if you disagree with my decision. Also of use might be Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malwyn a'Beckett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test match. 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) 08:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian football move

Regarding the move discussion at Template talk:2010-11 in Indonesian football#Requested move 2, where you participated. Please see Category:Years in Indonesian association football navigational boxes. I see your point that it doesn't matter how we title templates, but this category has seven templates which show a mishmash of hyphens and dashes. This looks strange. Do you think there is any kind of general guidance on how to get out of this? An admin who closed the move discussion by changing the dashes to hyphens in all the other cases would probably receive funny looks. I would assume this must have come up before. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I would suggest the admin close it as moved, my comment was deliberately not an oppose. I only made the comment because there seem to have been more RMs to move templates lately and they are all largely pointless. So once this RM has started I guess we may as well move it – my comment is mainly to try and deter people from RMing templates in the future. I get that consistency is nice, but if the redirect is created instead (something that's a lot quicker than RM) there is no functional difference. I agree moving from dashes to hyphens would be even more pointless, again redirects are a much simpler solution. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

.

Discovered by chance thatthese page moves remained unnoticed - Pumi dog -> to Pumi (dog). Can't move it, Move Pumi dog is not alowed for some reason. Also, now I am checking - Greenland dog was moved too, and Pyrenean Shepherd dog. Hafspajen (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. For future reference (if I'm not around or whatever), you can request to revert undiscussed moves at WP:RM/TR. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You got mentioned

Have you seen this? 154.127.56.111 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not until now. A sad situation all round. Jenks24 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

The image you removed from the 2013 and 2014 AFL articles is the on the AFL article. Explain please? NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The image is non-free, meaning that someone (in this case the AFL) holds the copyright for it. As a result, it can only be used in cases where fair use applies and a fair use rationale (FUR) has been written on the file page. As you can see there is a FUR for the Australian Football League article only at File:Australian Football League.svg. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hope this helps, explaining our image policies is not a strength of mine. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Much appreciated, Jenks. Btw, I've changed all the WI categories as agreed and will do the articles over the next few days. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. And yeah, I saw that, thanks. I should be able to give you a hand with renaming the article. Jenks24 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That was fast work on the West Indies. I went out for a couple of hours and when I came back they were all done. Thanks very much for your help there. I'm going to go through them again to check categorisation as I see cats are missing from some articles and then the next step is to convert the redirects into articles (well, stubs anyway). All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Had to do something to take my mind off my footy team losing by under a goal... And yeah, I did notice that the categorisation was a little inconsistent. Only other problem was the women's tours of the Windies, I moved a few of them that I happened to notice on the navboxes but we don't seem to have proper categorisation for them at all so I have no idea if I got all of them. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bang Bang (Jessie J album)

Having written Sexy Lady (Jessie J song), I have just received a notification that my page was linked from this one. Could you eMail the contents of that page to me?--Launchballer 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't much there, but sure thing. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with move

Hi Jenks. I don't know how I've done this but I wanted to recreate the article about the Pakistani tour of the West Indies in 1958 and I have somehow done it in Pakistani cricket team in West Indies in 1957–58. Realising my mistake, I tried to move it to Pakistani cricket team in the West Indies in 1957–58 and it won't let me, possibly because there's a double redirect somewhere. Can you help me out, please? D'oh! Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, unfortunately non-admins can't move over redirect pages that have more than one edit in their history because it requires deleting the redirect. And incidentally – wow, I didn't expect England to chase down the 300-odd but that collapse was farcical. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jenks. Must make sure I get the "the" one in future! You're right, England are in a bad way and Cook has to go now. I reckon he's our worst captain since Botham and Denness. It was a spectacular collapse, just like old times. Ishant had been looking pretty ordinary until today. All credit to India, of course. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title change

Howdy! Consider changing this article's title[1] to something better. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Could be moved to simply Sanam Gabriel, but I gave it a PROD instead – doesn't look notable to me. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How about Salem Lutheran Church, Farrar, Missouri? I think that other articles have used brackets, like Trinity Lutheran Church (Altenburg, Missouri). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, done. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brooks (historian and journalist) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Tough one, unless he is clearly more notable for being either a historian or journalist then the current slightly clunky title might be the best we can do. Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Jenks. An unusual request, I know, but as my user and talk pages had to be protected because of the attacks you have once again kindly reverted, would it be possible for you to do the same with my five sandbox pages? And since AA is in exactly the same boat, could his be protected too? I'm sure he'll be happy with that as these pages are supposed to be exclusively for member's own use. The pages are:

• User:AssociateAffiliate/monobook.js
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox2
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox3
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox4
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox4.1
• User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox5
• User:BlackJack/sandbox
• User:BlackJack/box1
• User:BlackJack/box2
• User:BlackJack/box3
• User:BlackJack/box4

Sorry to burden you with this but when a longstanding troll who specialises in fabrication says "goodbye for ever" and "I'll go", it is difficult to believe that he is telling the truth. Thanks again for all your help. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea and  Done, except for the monobook.js which I think is protected automatically. @AssociateAffiliate: I assume this is OK with you but let me know and I'll reverse it no worries. By the way, Jack, glanced through my watchlist earlier and saw all your work with the WI tour categories, nice stuff! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks very much, Jenks, you're a pal. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is fine thanks Jenks, my MCC sandbox has come under particular attack this last week or so. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Australian national soccer/association football team

Hi,

Just re your opposition to the speedy renaming of the "Australian national soccer team" categories to "Australian national association football team" it seems like you might not be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Special cases. As I understand it this doesn't impact the Speedy renaming now that it has already been opposed? But nonetheless may be relevant elsewhere/in a regular renaming discussion. Macosal (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't read it as an endorsement of "Australia national association football team" as a title, merely a note that "Australia national football team" (note the absence of "association") is not ambiguous and should redirect to the Socceroos article regardless of where it's located. I'm meaning to start a RM for Australian national association football team → Australian national soccer team some day. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. Seems to explain both in my view (why else would that name have been used for the article itself?) but I can kind of see how you're reading it. Regardless it seems to me that categories should follow the same naming conventions as articles to which they directly relate? I guess here is not the place to discuss that either way (and whoever moved for speedy renaming in the first place is free to request a move via the regular pathway if they want). Macosal (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There has only relatively recently been a change from association football to soccer for Australian articles and some are lagging behind the change. That said, I sympathise with your opinion that the category should be the same as the article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's probably good you left me this note, it finally got me motivated to start Talk:Australia national association football team#Requested moves. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the common sense

and actually hearing what I had to say, instead of whining "TLDR" as a reason to ignore what I say, or dismissing me because I'm the only one advancing the truth that's in need of addressing. For the record Turkish wikipedia has separate articles on Cacik and Tzatziki, and I note that a related Balkan dish tarator has its own article in English Wikipedia. The ethnic politics of the nom were clear as day btw.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yes, it did seem that ethnic politics were also the main reason the articles were merged in the first place a few months ago, with both 'sides' trying to downplay the significance of the other's food. Jenks24 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

please revert the title of the Israeli military operation back to 'Operation Protective Edge'

This article is about the military operation, such as 'Operation Barbarossa' during WW2 - and the previous two move requests were both DECLINED by consensus. Please fix this ASAP. The wider "war" if history defines one, will/would get it's own article. Thank you. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi HammerFilmFan. I've just read back over the discussion and I still think I made the correct assessment of the consensus. The argument to use an "Operation X" title as many other articles do did carry plenty of weight in the discussion (though, as was pointed out in the discussion, there are many more military articles that do not use the "Operation X" format), but in this case I thought the arguments for using a two-sided descriptive name to better give the title a neutral point of view were stronger. If you still disagree with my decision you can appeal it at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Move review for 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Industrail Cape Breton listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of Industrail Cape Breton. Since you had some involvement with the History of Industrail Cape Breton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Man utd.

Why are you listing angel di Maria as a man utd player. Have you bumped your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.199.83 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. I changed it from United back to Madrid. Help:Diff might be of use to you. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 protests in Turkey

Hallo, I noticed that last week you closed the discussion about the requested move of 2013–14 protests in Turkey with no consensus. I just saw that the article has been moved despite this decision. Can you do something about that? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Move reverted. If people keep moving it without talk page consensus I'll move protect it, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The mover is a fairly new user, so maybe you are right. :-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your close of Talk:(_) (album)#Requested moves 2

Please have another look at this discussion. Although there was clearly support for moving the album, just about everyone involved also supported redirecting ( ) to parenthesis. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, not sure how I missed that. I've moved the dab page back to ( ) (disambiguation) and ( ) now redirects to parentheses. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 17:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Draft:Bo$$ (Fifth Harmony song) Comment

Since you declined the speedy, do you have any suggestions on how to remove the draft, then? A newer version of the article exists at Draft:Bo$$ (Fifth Harmony song) and so there really is no need to keep the one in draftspace anymore.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just turned Draft:Bo$$ (Fifth Harmony song) into a redirect to Boss (Fifth Harmony song). Hopefully that solves any problems. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - for some reason that didn't occur to me when I left my message.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Hi! You recently closed the Talk:National_Film_Awards_(India)#Requested_moves_2 RM as "no consensus". And as you say, poor arguments they were. Unhappy with it, I had yesterday requested more audience at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#NFA_move_request. Can you please relist it once again? By next week I hope we would have more people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's a reasonable request. Hopefully a consensus develops one way or the other by next week. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanks for the bigger move into {{Track gauge}} today. Smooth operation. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad everything went smoothly. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sattenapalle

Does the same applies to merge proposal on Guntur Coast.--Vin09 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean you just want to redirect that article to Guntur district rather than actually merging anything? It's an editorial decision that should be made by you and anyone else with a good knowledge of the topic. The question really comes down to whether you believe any of the content currently in the Guntur Coast deserves a place in the Guntur district article. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic area to know the answer to that though. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No move decision at norleucine

Hello. You created (if I understand what has occured correctly), a no-move decision at norleucine. I was wondering why? As I understand it, motivation of a community of individuals in greater numbers favoring one decision is supposed to be insufficient on such decisions. It is the quality and validity of the arguments posed that should win out. I have provided a reference. No one else has. I have appropriately refuted the somewhat specious argument that norleucine is a common term "still in use" by pointing out that literally anyone challenging its use in peer review would succeed in seeing it changed, and this is in fact the case. I would agree that selective interpration of the occurrence of the term in the scientific literature might lead one naively to believe it is a common term in use, but it truly is not, apart from sloppiness, ignorance, or insufficient rigor in the peer review process. Further, a considerable number of comments seemed to be directed toward the view that Wikipedia does this or Wikipedia doesn't or should't do that. This I don't understand as I made a concerted effort to learn how to approach this topic using the rules laid out by the community. What I have encountered resembles the typical internet community response where those who interact regularly with each other rapidly descend on and swarm views that their colleagues disagree with. The scientific consensus on this topic has not only been reached, it has been formally codified. I provided first the reference, then directly quoted the relevent section. Thus, I would like to understand why you feel the arguments for the status quo should win out? I have to say, I have been considerably less than impressed with the quality of this website. I have certain expertise that I thought might allow me to contribute to improving the quality of articles. I've begun with something so mundane, something that should be so trivial as to numb the mind. Fixing a glaring error where a scientific consensus has been reached on a naming convention. Instead of posting the request and never having to look at it again, I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time challenging baseless assertions. I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational. It is not intended in that fashion, but I really don't know how else to describe the vast majority of what has passed for argument on this issue from the view of those opposed. Other than the apparent need to oppose something. The quality of Wikipedia will suffer if this is a typical experience, as I promise you, I, and most like me will not bother to contribute. Wikipedia will become nothing more than a source of other references, with people moving directly from the title of a page, to the reference section below, and ignoring all the intervening argument for argument's sake. I doubt that is the intended goal of this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.228.77 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you've understood correctly that my reading of the discussion was that there was not a consensus to move the article to your proposed title. Since getting you message I have re-read the requested move (RM) discussion several times. And I read through it several times while it was listed as an open RM. The point of me saying this is that I didn't take the decision lightly and I really have tried to give your argument as much thought as possible. But having said that, I stand by my decision. I have a feeling my reply may be a little rambling, but I'll try to explain it to you as best I can.

You are completely correct that the quality of arguments is the most important part of assessing a discussion. It is not the only part though, the numbers of those participating is taken into account and very rarely will you a discussion be closed where it is effectively one in favour and six against get closed in favour of the one. Not to say it doesn't happen though, so on to the actual arguments. I thought you made a really good case, so much so that I relisted it twice (most RMs last only seven days, you will note this one went for over three weeks) in the hope that others might weigh in. It is for that same reason I dropped notes about the discussion at WikiProject Chemicals and WikiProject Chemistry – you sounded like someone who, if not an expert (I don't know, maybe you are – hard to tell for sure over the internet), at least had a very detailed understanding of the issue at hand. Unfortunately for your case, it appears the editors from those projects who chose to participate in the discussion disagreed with your opinion.

But anyway, back to the actual arguments. When I say above that the "quality of arguments" is most important in assessing a discussion, I should make it clear that, for better or worse, this means "quality of arguments in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". And the policy in question for titling is Wikipedia:Article titles, of which "Use commonly recognizable names" (often referred to as "COMMONNAME") is a subsection. The basic tenet of this is that the name most commonly used in reliable sources is most likely to be the name searched for by the reader and hence that's what we should call our articles to best aid the reader in finding their desired topic. This should not be confused with the chemical term, common name (as an aside, that's why your argument about muriatic acid was off base, hydrochloric acid being the most common term and hence our article title). Those in opposition to you did make a reasonable case for norleucine being the most common term – clearly it was in the past and you agreed in response to Smokefoot that even if the searches were were confined to a relatively recent amount of time norleucine would still be used more often than 2-aminohexanoic acid (your source also noted that norleucine is "widely used"). Whether these sources do so out of sloppiness is not really for us at Wikipedia to judge. For better or worse, our policy is to follow the majority of sources. Hence I thought that the quality of arguments, in terms of Wikipedia policy, favoured leaving the article at the present title. I do, however, agree with you completely that the naming of it should be fully discussed in the article, not just given a one sentence "this is the systematic name".

Perhaps laughably I've been sitting over this response to you for well over an hour. I do sympathise with your position and I am trying to convey that in my response. It is frustrating when you make a detailed case and are refuted with single sentence responses. Likewise when those responding simply give a few links to WP:WHATEVER and do not fully discuss the issue. Wikipedia no doubt has a problem engaging with experts and academics, arguably because we are often behind the curve when it comes to things like this – it often takes a great weight of sources to change from an entrenched position and the Wikipedia model of consensus favours the established position. But I'm at a bit of a loss to tell you how this can be fixed. I love Wikipedia for what it is, many faults and all. Wikipedia is not for everyone. I genuinely hope it is for you, we always need more contributors and this is especially true of those with expert knowledge. But the 'community' as it were will make decisions you disagree with and will make decisions you think are pretty stupid. This is true of any contributor and any topic area. I guess it's up to you whether you can put up with that and focus on what can be fixed and improved here.

Lastly, I should note that RM closures can be reviewed at "Move Review" and you are free to start one about my closure at Talk:Norleucine if you wish. I think it very unlikely that my closure would be overturned, but then again I'm obviously biased in that I consider to be the correct one so take that with a grain of salt. All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Permission to start a new RM

Greetings,
A few weeks ago you closed a move request for August 2013 Rabaa Massacre when there was clearly no consensus. I understand that initiating a new discussion would be disruptive, but from the way I see it, the word massacre is behind the whole dispute over there. So I wanted to ask for your permission to start a new RM for Rabaa and Nahda massacre because I believe it isn't controversial. Even the opposing editor(s) seem to have no problem with mentioning the other sit-in (Nahda) that was dispersed.[2] Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Personally I wouldn't start a new RM for that article because so many RMs in such a short space of time can be an irritation (and can result in people opposing for the simple reason that there have been too many RMs), but I think your comments here are reasonable and it can be equally frustrating to keep getting no consensus results so I'm going to leave it up to you – you may start a new RM for that proposed title if you wish. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

question re: recent edits

i see you did a lot of paragraph merging at J. G. Fox. i'm curious -- is there a guidelines page that describes this style? i felt it was more clear with the paragraph breaks. Pgf (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't sure if you had intended them to be separate paragraphs or not. If you look at this old version of the page before I edited it we can see there are only paragraph breaks (by that I mean breaks that are visible to the reader) in the "Special Relativity and Extinction" section. Simply starting a new line won't make it appear as a new paragraph, there needs to be another clear line in between as well. MOS:PARAGRAPHS is the relevant guideline and per that I try to avoid single sentence paragraphs where possible so I thought it was better to make them clearly part of the same paragraph. This all said, if you want to change it back to the way it was that's OK with me. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

okay, thanks -- i'll take another look when i'm back at a screen big enough to see more than four lines at a time. ;-) Pgf (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Nice article by the way, impressive stuff considering it's the first you've written here. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you! and, my apologies: i seem to have completely misremembered there being paragraph breaks in other places. perhaps i removed them myself very early on, before initially hitting "save". Pgf (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine

Can you please move back to Wolverine (character) back to Wolverine (comics) there were several discussions about this in past resulting in it being at Wolverine (comics) the latest discussion does not seem to have same level of concensus and wasn't even the target of the initial proposition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change and my reading of that RM was that the consensus was to move to "(character)". No one in the RM even made the argument that it should stay at "(comics)", it was almost unanimous that it was a poor title – the question was pretty much just what the new title should be. The fact the consensus title wasn't the the original proposal is irrelevant, this is something that commonly happens. So, sorry, but my answer is no. And in case you are not aware, RM closures can be appealed at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This kind of revision has happened before where I had to correct the links on the pages that have links to Wolverine. We need to start making up our minds about what to call this page. If we have to redirect Wolverine (comics) to the page that details the Wolverine comics, then that would be a suggestion to redirect it there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be good if this time when a decision is made we stick with it. And hopefully the new RM will end with a consensus for where "Wolverine (comics)" should redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Goodo

this is okay, I didn't realize the Maxim Gorky novel Troe is Three of Them in English translation, and of course didn't even have a stub. I see now you handled a RM about Thr3e on the Talk page also. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Great. And yeah, that's why I noticed the move, it was still on my watchlist from that RM a few years ago. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Medical pot

So, is there any way that you could see reopening my move request? Your closing basically says that you could not find any argument more or less compelling and that votes were about equal. It seems to me that awaiting more comments could resolve the equal split problem. Abductive (reasoning) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It had already been going for 15 days and no one had commented for the last 6. So I don't think reopening would make it much likelier for a consensus to develop, sorry. My suggestion would be to wait a few months and try a new RM. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedball (American)

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_26#Speedball (American).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Merredin

Hello. May I please ask how you decided on your username? The reason I ask is because it is my family name, and quite rare. Thank you 60.230.218.131 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

'Jenks' is one of my nicknames. It's derived from my surname, which is similar, but not exactly 'Jenks'. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Skip Bayless may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bayless covered the Mustangs while writing for both the ''The Dallas Morning News'' and the ''[Dallas Times Herald''. He also appeared in the 2011 [[ESPNU]] documentary, ''Herschel'',<ref>[http:/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

About Edo Benetti

Hi Jenks24. Do you have more refs available for this chap? (ps: the Tigers are in the finals again! Tigers in the finals = good for footy. As for my poor old BrisRoy Boys.... I think it's called a "re-building stage") Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hah, I think most people were on the Tiges yesterday (fun stat: first time since the early '70s they've made consecutive finals appearances). Then they get in and you rethink after so many of their supporters come out of the woodwork... Yes, Brisbane look like they could be down for a little while, though they do have some good young kids. And remember, things could always be worse.

I added a little bit to Benetti (gave him a pretty infobox), but apart from one line in The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers I don't have much on him and nor could I find much online. Possibly worth asking Lintornterry (talk · contribs) as I think he has a few books on the Tigers, but even they wouldn't be guaranteed to have a lot of info on this guy. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your reversion at Comic-Con redirection Reply

Hello:

While I can understand that you may not believe that "Comic-Con" meets the "primary redirect"-- not only is the name "Comic-Con" trademarked by the nonprofit Comic-Con International, it's also been the standard usage to refer to the San Diego convention for decades. Prior to the recent creation of 'new' conventions confusingly calling themselves "Comic Con" (particularly Wizard Entertainment's rebranding of its traveling shows) the term "Comic-Con" by itself always referenced SDCC, not any other convention.

For example, Hollywood Reporter's section covering the convention is under the heading "Comic-Con 2014" -- where all of headlines only say "Comic-Con", such as:

• From 'Warcraft' to Wonder Woman: Who Won and Lost at Comic-Con - sub-headed "For studios and networks, Comic-Con is like "Game of Thrones": You win or you die."

Or the more serious Wall Street Journal:

• "TV's Superheroes Wield Power at Comic-Con"

As calendars turn to July on Hollywood studio lots, marketing executives ask, "What have we got to show the geeks at Comic-Con?

Likewise, the stories about the convention from Time magazine, only reference "Comic-Con" in the headlines:

• "5 Things to Expect at This Year’s Comic-Con" (2014)

• "Experience Comic-Con: What It's Really Like on the Convention Floor" (2010)

Everyone says Comic-Con is crazy, but here's a real taste of what happens when you try to navigate the three miles of the convention floor this year in San Diego.

• Comic-Con Highlights: 5 Things You Need To Know" (2013)

You didn’t have to have been at Comic-Con, the annual geek-friendly pop-culture convention that ran from July 18 through 21, to have been overwhelmed with all the movie and TV news emerging from San Diego.

These were just quick Google searches; if you need more exhaustive examples, just let me know. -HidariMigi (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your detailed response here. Personally, I'm still not sure about this. When I google "Comic-Con" the first results I get are all related to some Oz Comic-Con (doesn't look like this trademark extends outside the US?), but I do take your point that it does seem that the other organisations that use "Comic-Con" are rarely referred to as simply "Comic-Con". I've taken it to RfD (see here) where I made a pretty neutral nomination and pinged a few other possibly interested editors so we can get a consensus on this. Hopefully after a week or so we'll get a result one way or the other and never have to revisit this. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI: Google takes geography into consideration when searching and always lists the location and domains that are most "appropriate" to your IP first. As I notice that you're in Australia, that's why you're getting an Oz news item rather than the original. I suggest instead, looking at doing site-specific searches like "Comic-Con site:publication.com" such as this search of USAToday.com. In answer to your main point, however, "Comic-Con" has been used for the San Diego convention nearly from its founding 40 years ago. See: Comic-Con.org/about where it states, "the show officially became the San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) in 1973 with the fourth annual event."

I've seen your RfD and will respond there, as well-HidariMigi (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A question about one of your edits in the Skip Bayless entry

Hello. I was wondering why you undid the edit in which "American Christian" was added to the Categories at the bottom of the page. I didn't make that addition, and I realize it was made by an anonymous user, but it is certainly an appropriate category to be included on Bayless' entry. It is well-known he is a devout Christian, and of course, he is American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi William. See WP:BLPCAT – I reverted the addition because the fact he is a Christian did not seem to be supported by any reliable sources in the article. If I've missed a source that does state he is a Christian or someone does add a reference to the article stating that, then we can add the category back, but not before. Unfortunately we cannot just categorise someone because it's "well known", it must be supported by reliable sources. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Jenks, it very clearly states Bayless' religion is Christian in the info box. There is sourcing available for that fact, but I don't see any other sourcing in the info box. Where would you suggest the source be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that but as you note it's not sourced. It's fine to add a reference to something in the infobox (everything in the infobox should either be sourced or mentioned and referenced in the actual article text) and in this case probably seems like the easiest solution. A lot of biographies have a "personal life" or somesuch section, but it's probably not worthwhile to create one here just so we can add a single-sentence statement that he is Christian. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aaron Edwards may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 100 goals in the Dolphins' semi-final. He also collected the [[J. J. Liston Trophy]] as the VFL's [[best and fairest] player for 2006 with eighteen votes.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)