User talk:Jenks24
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page! Here's a few notes that may be helpful to read before posting:
|
Peccaries
Thank You for moving White-lipped Peccary and Chacoan Peccary. Will you be fixing all the now-redirected links or will other users have to it? Outback the koala (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've fixed all the double redirects, but it isn't necessary for anyone to fix the normal redirects (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Histmerge
hello,
could you check whether the history of User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox14 could be merged with Pyramid of Neferefre? Thanks in advance. Regards.--GoPTCN 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and done. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—David Levy 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support. That was sure a lot of fireworks. I guess I no longer have a clean wiki-record to boast of. As soon as I get over this flu, I expect to be once again doing my thing, either promoting the use of the English language, or oppressing black Eastern Europeans, depending on how you look it. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. Clean block log and then indef'd just because you didn't want to respond to one comment? Bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I checked MSGJ's user page before I reverted, but I didn't see any indication that he is an admin. Kauffner (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, that's quite weird. I'll ask him about it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I checked MSGJ's user page before I reverted, but I didn't see any indication that he is an admin. Kauffner (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I insert unnecessary info there? Are there any more unnecessary info in Twitter section? --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know, George. My involvement with that article was only because of the move you asked for. I'd suggest either asking on the talk page or asking one of the experienced editors who has been active on the talk page. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why removing such content then? --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I can't recall doing that, I must have clicked rollback accidentally. I'm sorry, I've undone my edit. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why removing such content then? --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
MoS: "Russo-Turkish" vs. "Russo–Turkish"
Hey, Jenks24
There hasn't been much discussion here and not any here, so should I proceed to make the changes (converting instances of "Russo–Turkish" into "Russo-Turkish", or is it customary to wait longer for a result to take shape / a consensus to be acted upon to emerge, and if so, how much longer?
Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, considering you are the only one who has advocated the dash and you've now changed your mind on it, feel free to go ahead and change back to hyphens. If you do, I'll close the RM as withdrawn. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. With regards to article names, I think all is back to how it was before, except for this, for which I ask your help in moving it because I can't do myself [anymore]. (Sorry for all the confusion caused by my misguided edits, by the way.) If I'm not mistaken, it used to be like this:
- "Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–1739)"
- (Without meaning to open another can of worms, but this construction makes me question the "Franco-British rivalry" thing of the MoS anew: Since a hyphen is combining, it usually expresses parts of a whole, as in "Franco-British heritage" – a heritage consisting of both French and British influences –, right? Now, the en dash in such contexts is pitting things against each other, as in "French–British rivalry". So can there really be such a thing as a "Franco-British rivalry" in that sense? Wouldn't that imply a rivalry within a Franco-British whole, like, within the Angevin Empire or so, when [parts of] both France and Britain were part of the same political entity? But then, when speaking of page numbers – as in "pp. 32–35" –, for example, the en dash doesn't denote opposites, either. Man, this whole thing is headache-inducing...)
- Done. No problem about this, it took me quite a while to get my head around this dash stuff and there are still plenty of things where I'm not quite sure. Regarding the can of worms, I'd suggest asking about it at WT:MOS if you want a good response (as I said, I'm no expert) – the people there are all very knowledgeable and happy to explain things. Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks again – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)