User talk:Jenks24/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Jenks24, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me, and am glad that I have been able to change your impression of me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Congrats on your own RFA, btw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it as an easy decision. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Theodora von Auersperg

Your close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Theodora von Auersperg doesn't specify a reason. I see some claims of copyright issues, which have been resolved. I think you closed it as delete independent of that issue, but I can't be sure. If that is the case, please delete it again, as confirmation that the copyright issue did not contribute to the decision.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

However, note that additional references have been added since the decision.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've added a clarifying note to the AfD; even if the copyright issues were resolved, the consensus was clearly to delete. I was about to re-delete, but as you noted new sources have been added to the article and even though they look pretty unreliable to me, I think that might get it past the G4 bar. At the moment, even though I'm 99% sure another AfD will also result in a delete outcome, I think technically it should go through AfD again. This all said, I've only been an admin for less than a week, so I'm happy to hear other opinions. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, seems like RHaworth (talk · contribs) thought G4 was applicable. Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: SHYSTER

• Shyster_(expert_system) → SHYSTER (expert system) (move) – Incorrect capitalization Sally6767 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jenks24,

My apologies if isn't the appropriate place to send you this message. SHYSTER is an acronym -- see:

• Popple, James (1996). A Pragmatic Legal Expert System (PDF). Applied Legal Philosophy Series. Dartmouth (Ashgate). ISBN 1-85521-739-2.
• SHYSTER site at the Australian National University

I think it stands for something like "Sack Half Your Staff, Try Expert Retrieval".

Thanks very much Sally6767 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sally. You could have replied there, but it's fine to discuss it here as well. Thanks for the links, I had a look at them and, although SHYSTER is capitalised in both, I couldn't actually I find anything that said SHYSTER is an acronym. Did I miss something? If not, would it be possible to provide a source that does state that it's an acronym? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24. I learnt that it was an acronym from the developer of the system, Dr Popple. But I don't think I have anything in writing. Thanks Sally6767 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is now under discussion at Talk:Shyster (expert system). I will copy the comments you have made here over there and you are welcome to participate in that discussion. Hope you don't feel like we're jerking you around here, as that is not the intention. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

hello. crespo article

hey brother you should revert his edit to my contribution that comes with sources then protect the article. See the history dates. I appreciate your decision about the block politics. thank you.--Neogeolegend (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. See WP:WRONGVERSION. There is no "right" version to protect or revert to in a dispute like this and it's just luck of the draw that it ended up being protected while at the other guy's version. I will not revert to your preferred version, sorry. Hopefully you two can work it out on the talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag of China

Please undelete the page and merge its edit history into Flag of China (disambiguation). 119.236.141.31 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think a histmerge would be appropriate as the two pages have parallel histories. That said, I agree the article should not be sitting over a deleted history, so I will move the old page history out to something like Talk:Flag of China/old. Jenks24 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Australian Honours System

fyi, your change to hlist was reverted. I have converted it again. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for converting again. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving Amer Aziz. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Two recent AfD closes

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Titima as delete, but it appears you didn't delete the article. Then at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System of Systems Integration you closed delete, but only deleted one of the two bundled articles for deletion. Thought you would want a heads up. Monty₈₄₅ 04:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The first one wasn't me, but I've tidied them both up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RM icubator

My RMs have kicked up quite a fuss lately, so I am putting the ones I am working on a subpage. You can mosey on over to User:Kauffner/RM incubator and see what I plan to unleash. Kauffner (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on being awarded a mop! Sorry I missed noting the nomination, or I would have certainly joined in the pile-on support. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Jenks24 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

hockey templates

• Diff of Template:Anaheim Ducks seasons
• Diff of Template:Boston Bruins seasons
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive51#Accessibility — old stalling

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Weird that only ice hockey seem to take issue and not other sports. Hopefully common sense prevails in the long run. Jenks24 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That group has pretty strong ownership issues. fyi, I was User:Alarbus in that discussion (long story; street-legal;). The hockey group has a lot of poor ideas about how navboxes should be built. There are something like 40 templates in that set. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

History-merges

• Thanks for doing the histmerges; but please log any histmerges in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, right. Will do from now on. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of PBS

Hi. I'm surprised to see that Talk:PBS#Requested move has been closed. I appreciate that there's a backlog but per the guidance at WP:RM I'd expect it to have been relisted because there seems to be no clear consensus. Your closing comment that No one has disputed that PBS is the common name and the most recent discussion the consensus was that the TV station is the primary topic doesn't seem accurate. I stated that it's [...] arguable that Public Broadcasting Service isn't the primary topic (regardless of Google results in this case) and Vegaswikian (only a few hours ago) stated I'm not convinced that all English speakers would agree that this is the primary topic. Closing the ongoing discussion also doesn't easily allow me to explain why I think the PRIMARYTOPIC logic in the August 2011 discussion was flawed. And in any case, consensus on the previous discussion may have changed, being some 9 months old. What do you think? Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think my close is accurate; in the 2011 discussion the consensus was that the American broadcasting network is the primary topic. I also noted in my closure that consensus can change, however, you did not make a strong case (i.e. referring to the primary topic guideline) that the previous discussion was incorrect. You simply stated that "there are numerous other meanings" and "I count >30 alternatives listed at PBS (disambiguation)", neither of which are strong arguments, while Kauffner made a case using page views (one of the suggested ways to determine a primary topic) that was not refuted. The other suggested ways to measure a primary topic, incoming links and google searches, which were shown to favour the American broadcasting company in the 2011 discussion, were also not refuted. I don't mean to be a dick when I say this, but when you were asked a week ago about why the American broadcasting network isn't the primary topic, you did not make a strong case and seeing as the discussion had been going for well over a week and the consensus, IMO, was already clear, I did not think an extra week would be useful. Also, Vegaswikian's oppose carried very little weight because it was based on faulty assumptions and saying something is "really ambiguous" is the equivalent of saying something is "really (non-)notable" at AfD. I'm happy to discuss this further if you want, but I think it's unlikely I will change my opinion, so you may be interested in knowing that Wikipedia:Move review has recently been opened and you can request a review of my closure there if you wish (works similar to WP:DRV if you are familiar with that process). PS – hope you are a football fan, as the three lions just had a nice win. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nichkhun

Thanks for the help with Nichkhun! I'm wondering if you have any general advice with regards to mononymous / stage names? We're having a bit of a debate at Talk:Jang Wooyoung over what to do with that page. I'm interested in bringing all the 2PM members to their mononyms / stage names, except with 2PM member Kim Junsu because of disambiguation problems with TVXQ Junsu. I'm not sure if WP:STAGENAME applies in this case -- is the mononym considered a stage name? If you have any tips I would appreciate it. Thanks. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, mononyms can be tricky and often divide opinion. Mononyms can be considered stage names (Kesha springs to mind), but only if they are very rarely referred to by their full name. Wikipedia:NCP#Single name has some good advice on this. One of the best ways that I've seen to test it is to see how they are credited if they've made any TV/film appearances. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Newbie question!

Hello! Thank you for the warm welcome on my talk page.

I do have one question for you. What exactly is the etiquette as far as editing pages? Do I leave a message with my intended change on the talk page before making the edit, and if so, how long do I wait before making said change? I'm sure this answer varies based on the specific situation but I would appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Thanks! Ænea (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In general, the accepted practice is to be bold. If you see something that you can fix or improve, then please go ahead and do so. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle also has some good advice on what to do if your edit is reverted (undone). The only times where I would suggest leaving a note on the talk page first is if you think you're edit will be controversial in some way, or you are editing a contentious article (ethnic, religious, political, etc. spring to mind). If you leave a note on a talk page and don't get a reply for a few days, then feel free to make your change. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, great. I'm only dealing with pharmacological articles at the moment so I doubt they would be considered "controversial". I appreciate the advice! Ænea (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to drop by again if you have any more questions. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have another question. I created a new article for the Comedy Bang Bang (TV series) but the page doesn't seem to be live yet. Internal links to it are still red and it's unsearchable but you can see the page under my contributions. Does it need to be approved by admins before it goes up or do I have to submit it somewhere? I didn't have any luck searching for this answer. Thanks! Never mind, it was just an issue with a letter being capitalized.Ænea (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Park Turner

I am responding to the proposal to delete the Stephen Park Turner Wiki entry. I am totally against deletion. I am the creator of that entry and it is based upon a twenty year professional relationship with him. I am also an recognized authority in the field of social theory and know that Turner has a distinguished professional reputation; he is frequently asked to contribute to journals in the fields of social theory, sociology, and social knowledge and is often in demand to present papers at academic institutions in the US and Europe. A scholar of Turner's reputation ought to have an entry and I believe that it was warranted when I wrote it and it still is. I am not certain how to proceed and will provide my email address just in case. csa-tweb.de 2001:558:6036:A:615D:D317:B66:924E (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The article has been proposed for deletion, which means that anyone, including yourself, can remove remove the proposed deletion tag and the process will be stopped. Seeing as you've objected to it here, I've removed the proposed deletion tag and taken it to an articles for deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Park Turner. You are welcome to contribute there and comment on why you think the article should not be deleted. Your best chance is if you can make a case that Mr. Turner has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources or meets any of the academic-specific notability inclusion criteria. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Re

Hello. You have a new message at TheSpecialUser's talk page. →TSU ^tp* 09:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

like

all government australian authorities stubs it is crap, and needs work (AMSA) - but... thems the breaks... SatuSuro 10:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of them are in need of attention. Wish I had the time/knowledge/inclination to make real improvements, but I just content myself with minor fiddling. Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

better a little fiddle than no fiddle at all i say...SatuSuro 10:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Very true :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 LinkedIn hack

Thanks from the DYK team of Wikipedia! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Wesley Mouse's talk page.
Message added 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wesley☀Mouse 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Descent from antiquity

I don't see G7 as saying we can delete a talk page (which I blanked before you deleted it) that is associated to an existing page. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have much more experience than me as an admin, so perhaps I am mistaken, but it was my understanding that the G in G7 stands for "general", which means it applies to all namespaces. G7 is applicable when the only substantial content was added by one person and that person requests deletion. Seeing as you did not add any content (only blanked the page), I thought that (a) you would not mind it being deleted, and (b) all the requirements laid out at WP:CSD#G7 had been met. Why don't you think G7 was applicable? Also happy to get others admins' opinions if you'd like. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, it's the fact that it says " provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page" which if strictly read supports my view, but I'm not going to argue about this. Very sorry for not responding sooner, I think I'm over-stretched to put it mildly. I'm still a bit bothered about deleting the talk page though - I don't see the purpose of it. Why hide it from ordinary readers? Maybe we need to get the wording sorted. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was under the impression that when a talk page was tagged "the page" referred to the talk page and there effectively was no "associated talk page", but now that I write that out it does sound pretty convoluted, so perhaps your interpretation is correct. No worries about the response time, I understand how it can get. I'll watch the discussion with interest. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, just one response, and that one disagrees with me! Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tatamagouche

Sorry for the edit conflict. Might be better to first close the discussion before moving the article? It would be less confusing for someone who tries to comment (or, as in this case, close the RM) on the same minute :) Jafeluv (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, I've been thinking about changing my process, but for some reason I was under the impression that it was standard practice to move the article first. WP:RMCI is a bit vague, so I think I will close the discussion first from now on. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion and ecology‎ page move

I noticed that you moved Religion and ecology‎ from Religion and environmentalism. There was no real mandate since there was no discussion. To use the term ecology instead of environmentalism is "sloppy" use of language. One is a branch of biology and the other is a social and political movement based on science. Can you move it back? I will reopen the discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that WP:RMCI says "Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." That said, your objection is not unreasonable, so I will move it back and reopen the discussion. You should avoid reopening the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Musical scale

If support and opposition are of equal merit, you should not fall back on counting votes. That goes against the very principle of WP:CONSENSUS. You should never be afraid to find no consensus, and if the two arguments are equal, that's the only possible finding. I would ask that you revert your closure to "no consensus to move". Powers ^T 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe my close was in line with WP:CONSENSUS. What I meant in my closing statement, and perhaps this wasn't expressed clearly enough, is that the oppose and support votes were equally well founded in policy and therefore each vote was assigned the same 'weight'. However, one side clearly had far more support – without checking back over the discussion, I believe it was something like 8 or 9 v 2 or 3 – and that became the deciding factor when the quality of argument was equal. I took into account the relevant guidance at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE and WP:RMCI when making the decision and I still think it was the correct. I was not afraid to find a lack of consensus (why would I be?), but after evaluating the discussion I came to the conclusion that there was one. No hard feelings if you want to take this to WP:MRV. Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess the problem I see is, if the argument I put forth, in opposition, was equally strong as the argument in favor of the move, then why discount my argument simply because fewer people explicitly agreed with me? Powers ^T 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It was equally strong in that if there had been the same or similar number of supports and opposes then I would have closed as no consensus. It's not that you argument was discounted because not many disagreed with it, but rather that the support side effectively becomes 'stronger' because many more people agreed with it. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a zero-sum game, so they're the exact same thing. Either way, though, counting votes seems to violate WP:NOTAVOTE. Powers ^T 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Although strength of argument is the most important part of determining consensus, it is not the only part and how many people have supported and opposed does play a role. Otherwise all discussions where the two opposing sides made reasonable and policy-based arguments would all end as no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Concern regarding your recent comment

As you already know, the motion I proposed in the Perth case concerns another user (if the header didn't give that away, the text sure did). If you disagree with the proposal or think the proposal is ridiculous, it is your choice to express that, but I think making unhelpful inflammatory throwaway remarks regarding me in comments on that proposal (like you did here) was inappropriate. Neither me nor my actions are proposed in the motion. Further, your so-called "encouragement" to make me a party to the case does appear suspicious, when I am commenting on, and will be presenting evidence about the conduct of certain administrators - whose actions you have defended and expressly endorsed in this matter.

It is apparent that you chose not to discuss any such concerns you have about my actions directly with me in the first instance, and perhaps you are making this call of "encouragement" on the basis you disagree with my comments regarding admin conduct. But if you are serious about involving me in this case, I'd certainly appreciate it if you refactor your comment to be more appropriate: I don't have a problem with you making a formal proposal to make me a party if it means the concern is substantiated in a format I can respond to.

For clarity, my concerns regarding admin conduct issues are quite aside from my view as to the content issues; I see nothing in wrong in expecting that more care is taken as far as admin conduct is concerned so that the content issues may be resolved with as little disruption as possible, but you are welcome to disagree. Even when I agree that a page should be moved, I don't consider it beneficial to avoid noting (where applicable): (1) that it was done either at the wrong time, (2) that it was done by the wrong person, (3) that it was done in the wrong way (eg; erroneously citing unrelated discussion), and/or (4) that where concerns regarding conduct were raised in relation to doing that action, the person who did the action failed to respond appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost didn't post that comment and, reading back over it, I'm disappointed in the final sentence. I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig up diffs and make a serious proposal that you should be added as a party, so I should not have suggested it. I'm not sure why you consider my comment "suspicious"; I have followed the RM, the move review, WT:MRV and today I got the time to read up on the ArbCom case. The more I read, the more irritated I got that you could be so critical of JHunterJ, who at worst has made an incorrect judgement call and one that many other admins would have made, yet defend Deacon who really started the whole mess and showed again why the second mover advantage is such a problem. To be honest, it smacks of partiality and of you having an axe to grind (I don't know if this is true, it probably isn't, but that is the vibe I have picked up from your comments and proposals). The proposal to immediately desysop Sarek pushed me over the edge and I made a regrettable comment. But these are not excuses; I made a poor comment because I was irritated, it probably only served to make people more irritated and being disappointed in someone else's actions is never an excuse for oneself to make overblown comments. I apologise for the final sentence and I will go strike it out after I post this reply. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate how it might appear, but FWIW, I'm not hoping to see JHunterJ desysopped (if that's what you thinking), and there is no pleasure gained from making proposals about another user's conduct in these sorts of proceedings or community discussions. If anything, the reality is I might have a reason to overlook JHunterJ's conduct due to positive interactions I had with him previously. Also, there would be little incentive for me to defend Deacon when the last interaction I had with him was probably negative (to put it mildly). I don't think these experiences should simply later blind me from raising concerns I have about their conduct in a separate particular situation, or from cutting them some slack where warranted.

I think JHunterJ's responses to criticism were problematic on enough occasions; although JHunterJ had multiple opportunities to acknowledge that or to actively demonstrate through his conduct that this was being addressed, it seemed to continue even after the initial reaction, and despite further feedback. I rather he take the hint seriously so as to makes adjustments now, rather than let it develop to the point where serious remedies are on the table later down the track. I was going through the case in stages, so it did happen that he was the first part of the process (naturally); with the time taken to respond to the comments to those proposals, the time I had with the remaining proposals declined somewhat steeply, so it could reasonably appear as if I am focusing on him. I do disagree with relation to the point about Deacon, and his comment in remedy 2 of PhilKnight's decision does (in my opinion) strongly mitigate the concerns and would not warrant a harsher Fof or remedy as suggested by some (if one is actually required).

As to the proposal regarding Sarek, although I still hold the view that a completely disinterested admin would have been more ideal in these particular circumstances (and that this should be signaled to the administrator concerned), having reviewed it again with time, I do agree that what happened was not so extreme as to warrant a desysop in these circumstances - as it apparently appeared to me closer to that time. I therefore do wish to have that proposal withdrawn.

I do doubt the actual necessity to have had this case filed in the way that it was. However, by having the above open, amicable, and sincere discussion here, I hope we (and others) can both put any other doubts we had in relation to this behind us. Thank you for your response. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if it was your intention or not, but it has relieved many of concerns. Reading back over it, I think it's pretty clear I judged your comments too harshly. I still think criticism of JHunterJ's responses are not particularly relevant to what the case was supposed to be about because his decision was overturned by Deacon in only a matter of hours; even someone with the best communication skills in the world wouldn't have been able to stop the overturn and subsequent wheel warring. To say JHunterJ's responses to criticism could be improved is not unreasonable, but then the same thing could easily be said of myself and many other admins and I think even an advisement is unnecessary. That's not to say I think Deacon should be more heavily reprimanded. I think an advisement is acceptable for his actions, seeing as it was only one error in judgement and he does not appear to have any history of similar actions. Regarding Sarek, I agree that a completely impartial admin would have been better, but I still don't think he did anything wrong. I'm glad you've changed your position on a desysop being warranted. I also agree that an ArbCom case was was unnecessary for this and, personally, I think a quick rap on the knuckles for those involved would have been better than a full case. Lastly, thanks for your considered comments here; it would have been understandable for you to have been pretty frustrated with me after my comment at the case and I appreciate your measured responses here. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move closed too early

Jenks, I didn't realize that you already closed the move request at Talk:Slashdot effect. If you had commented on the necessity of sources, I would've provided some. I'll have to open a new move request right? I had already posted a comment about the previous posts at the article deletion. Do I have to copy the reasons to the move discussion? - M0rphzone (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've re-submitted the RM with sources included. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi M0rphzone. In hindsight, it probably would have been better for me to relist the discussion and ask for people to provide sources, but you starting a new RM with sources should have the same effect. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Natural" disambiguation is not always natural

The knowledge you acquired by studying and arbitrating the RM at Talk:Scale (music) makes your contribution to WT:TITLE extremely valuable and desirable. You might agree that your decision implies that in some cases parenthetical disambiguation may be preferred to the so-called "natural" disambiguation. However, this is not allowed by WP:PRECISION.

"Natural" disambiguation is improperly called "natural", in this context, because WP:NAMINGCRITERIA gives a definition of "naturalness" which makes parenthetical disambiguation "natural" for Scale (music). Let's call it, for instance, "running-prose" disambiguation (or "integrated", as opposed to "separated" by parentheses or comma).

I am proposing a "neutral" approach in WP:PRECISION, such as the approach already adopted (without my help) in WP:NCDAB. I am not saying that parenthetical disambiguation should be preferred. I am not asking for a revolution. For instance, I would support the choice of running-prose disambiguation for:

• English language
• English people

I think we should trust the wiseness of editors and arbitrators. Guided by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and strengthened by WP:Consensus, which are their bible, editors are likely to take the right decision for each specific case. It is not wise to force them to always prefer running-prose disambiguation, although this is in some cases the correct decision. That's excessively rigid. We need a slightly greater flexibility to reach optimal results.

WP:PRECISION will provide a list of possible methods that editors will also take into account.

Your decision is a convincing examples about the fact that a too rigid policy is not always wise, as it does not allow for wise decisions in specific cases. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I understand what you're saying and if you get consensus on the talk page to make these changes, I won't be objecting. However, I don't think the Scale (music) RM closure should be used as a reason to change anything. If people think that arguments made within the discussion should be used as a reason to alter the policy, then that's perfectly fine, but my closing decision was for that one specific title and should not, IMO, be used as an example of why the titling policy, which covers all articles, needs to be changed. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting for me to understand your position, as you clearly know much about policies, but I still cannot. I am not suggesting a preference for parenthetical disambiguation. There's an evident contradiction that needs to be solved between two articles: WP:TITLE (preference for natural disambiguation) and WP:DISAMBIGUATION ("no hard rule", i.e. no preference). The wisest policy is obviously presented by WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and that is the approach which has been chosen by the majority of editors in Scale (music). Why shouldn't the discussion about Scale (music) be presented as a valid example? Paolo.dL (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a contradiction that needs to be corrected and I agree that pointing out the Scale (music) RM out as a page where it became an issue is fine. What I'm trying to say is that my close was specific for one article and should not be used to say that the policy, which covers all articles, needs to be changed. Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't understand. About 10 editors decided that they could use parenthetical disamb, even when "natural" was available, because WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NCDAB allowed it. They were aware that WP:PRECISION forbids it, as they were warned early during the discussion. But they did not change their mind. A few others were against this decision. So, about 10 editors decided not only to use parenthetical disamb, but also that WP:PRECISION was to be disregarded. Then, you certified that their decision was legitimate. You allowed them to disregard WP:PRECISION. In short, we have about 10 editors who think that WP:PRECISION is too restrictive, and act according to WP:NCDAB. I think what's important is the number of editors (about 10), not the number of articles (one).

I am not sure that this is the correct interpretation, but it seems to be consistent with yours. You wrote in your statement that WP:PRECISION was against the decision taken. You did not consider the opinion of Noetica, who maintained that "Musical scale" is not "natural" as defined by WP:PRECISION. So, according to Noetica, we did not disregard WP:PRECISION. According to you, we did!

Is this a correct interpretation of what happened and what you wrote? If this is not, you might want to change your statement (provided it is possible).

Paolo.dL (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Noetica made a lengthy case about why "musical scale" was not natural, but to be honest, I felt it was fairly well countered by Powers' one line response. IMO, WP:AT is quite a good policy, but it occasionally causes issues when, of two proposed titles, one is in accordance with one part of the policy and the other is in accordance with a different part of the policy, e.g. common name vs consistency. That is how I saw this discussion; a debate about which guidance at WP:AT we should follow. The consensus was, in this specific case, that being consistent with the related articles was of more importance than following WP:PRECISION. WP:PRECISION was not ignored or disregarded, it's just that it was felt to be not as important, by a relatively small group of editors, in one case. So, my point is: we don't change the common name section every time that it's decided not to go with the common name and so we don't need to change WP:PRECISION just because it was decided not to follow its guidance in one RM. We can change WP:PRECISION if there's a consensus (at WT:AT) that the WP:NCDAB wording would be an improvement, and the Scale (music) RM does show several editors who would probably prefer that change, but what that RM definitely does not show is that WP:PRECISION is wrong/incorrect/unsupported by the community. Hope this make sense, Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it does not show what the community thinks. You are right. But it does support my opinion that WP:PRECISION unwisely says that the so called "natural" should always be preferred to "parenthetical". Since there's a contradiction between two policies, we need to fix it. We need to decide whether we prefer one version of the policy or the other. And we have a group of editors who decided that WP:PRECISION should be disregarded in that particular case, not different from many other examples in which the rule was also disregarded (Interval (music), Mode (music), etc). I don't understand why you say "WP:PRECISION was not ... disregarded". We knew about WP:PRECISION, but we decided to disregard it. We fortunately were able to show that other policies were in contradiction with WP:PRECISION, so this made our transgression legitimate, as you certified. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you've just written, with the exception of "disregarded". Looking at wikt:disregarded, it means to ignore, but I don't think that's the accurate way to characterise it. WP:PRECISION was obviously considered by those of you who supported, but in the context of that discussion, was not felt to be as important as the consistency criterion mentioned in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for this explanation. I am glad I was able to understand your point and discuss this with you, before continuing my discussion on WT:AT. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad we had this discussion too. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Timor Leste

I am a newcomer to the discussion.

I did not see it until today.

In the U.S., few people know of East Timor but, those who do, often use the term.

In much of the world, including English speaking countries, Timor Leste is used. I have seen this on TV news, too.

Neither usage is wrong but the use of "East Timor" could be viewed as Americo-centric.

I see that nobody raised the points that I am raising.

If it is a vote among mostly Americans, I agree that East Timor wins. Of course, Wikipedia is not a vote.

If it is an international discussion, Timor Leste wins.

If it is a discussion among English speaking countries in the region, such as Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and India, Timor Leste wins.

FYI, only...not an argument. Auchansa (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for your opinion, but it doesn't change my opinion that consensus was against moving the article. For what it's worth, I don't think this result is reflecting a American-centric view. If you look at the table of Google results, which was not disputed, East Timor appears to be the common name in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK as well as the US. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The above was not my opinion, but statements of fact. You can see above that I am not advocating either East Timor nor Timor Leste.

I have watched the news in some of those English speaking countries in the region and Timor Leste was more common in two countries and mixed usage in one country with slightly more common use of East Timor.

Auchansa (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I live in Australia, I feel pretty confident when I say that the large majority of Australian news outlets use East Timor. The stats are also pretty clear for New Zealand. As for Singapore and India, I wouldn't know, so you may very well be correct about the usage in those countries. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The East Timor issue certainly gets the Muslims excited. My homepage was vandalized several times I RM'd it. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Any idea why? I thought Timor-Leste was the Portuguese name? Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"East Timor" is a pre-independence name, so the use of "Timor-Leste" implies recognition of independence. It's a Christian state that broke away from Indonesia, which is predominantly Muslim. The Indonesian government made a point of refusing to use "Timor-Leste" for several years. There was an bilateral agreement in 2008, and the Jakarta Post switched to "Timor-Leste" soon afterward. Kauffner (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the Portuguese left in the 1970s, and they are not a factor in the current political situation. Kauffner (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Who were the "Muslims", Kauffner? I couldn't see any at a quick glance (so I could be wrong), let alone any that were "excited"? --Merbabu (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, a student using a public access terminal at a school in Seattle.[1] I'm assuming Muslim because Arabic-language insults were posted. Thanks for caring. Kauffner (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with anonymous vandalism

Hi there Jenks. Thanks for the welcome and the offer of assistance. I hope you don't mind me taking you up on it so soon. An article I contribute to (Continuum (TV series)) has had a few vandalism edits by a specific IP address (76.19.219.138). Can you guide me in the right direction towards either giving the user a proper warning or preventing the user from making future anonymous edits to the page? Thanks in advance! ContinuumFans (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There are a whole slew of user warning templates, which you can place on the IP's talk page. The sheer number of those templates overwhelmed me when I first tried to warn someone, so my advice would be, as long as the edits you're concerned about meet the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism, you only need to know four templates: Template:Uw-vandalism1, Template:Uw-vandalism2, Template:Uw-vandalism3 and Template:Uw-vandalism4. It's pretty self explanatory, basically the first time they've vandalised use template 1, then number 2 if they keep going and so on until you've used warning 4. As you can see at User talk:76.19.219.138, someone else has already warned them twice, so if you see them vandalise again use {{subst:Uw-vandalism3|Continuum (TV series)}} ~~~~ below the previous warnings. If the IP continues to vandalise after the fourth warning, report them to WP:AIV where the admins will block him for a suitable length of time. Just say something along the lines of "continued vandalising after fourth warning" and the admins will know what you're talking about. Hope this helps and feel free to ask if you've got any follow up questions or other questions about Wikipedia. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)