User talk:Jenks24

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

2008 South Australian Super League

Thanks for fixing all the minor typos and MOS errors. I thought I'd caught most of them, but I guess that's what I get for creating articles at 1 in the morning. Oh well, only the 2009 season to go! Sellyme^Talk 15:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, there was really very little to tidy up compared to most new articles. Also, I'm sorry I had to slap an ugly tag on it, but I did have a look through google and the google news archives before doing so and I'm sure there must be independent sources out there. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

David Price (soccer)

Jenks thanks for your opinion on David Price (soccer). Having David Price (Football born 1971) is fine with me but is there a way of deleting revision history? Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.158.73 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, administrators can delete revisions in an article's history. Could you please explain to me why you want this done? It must meet one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. If it does I'll be happy to help you find an admin to do it (I'm not one, myself). Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of information in the revision history is not appropriate and has had to be changed and revised. Please advise for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.158.73 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, if any of the stuff meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction, please tell me specifically what revisions need to be deleted and for what reasons (I had a look through the history and couldn't see anything that looked blatant, but then I'm unfamiliar with the article). Once you tell me what specifically needs to be deleted I'll contact one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests for you. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AFL Detailed Matches

Hi Jenks, I believe that my method is more tidy and organised to have it like:
Player A, Player B, Player C 2
Player D, Player E, Player F
Rather that "Player A 2, Player B 2, Player C 2, Player D, Player E, Player F" mainly because it's less repetitive and more straight forward. Also that I beleieve that injuries and/or report should be left blank unless there is any. Many Thanks, --McAusten 00:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm probably not the person to ask about strict interpretation of the rules, but this was a total mess, no context, no notability, no refs, non-encyclopaedic how-to. I'd tag for deletion because it was pretty irretrievable; if an admin disagrees, which in this case I think is unlikely, they can always change to a prod, so no harm done anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben Stratton

I'm sorry for placing the article up for PROD. I didn't know what I was doing then, although I was thinking that there are too many Aussie rules articles that are stubs, and that there is not enough information for an article to achieve Start-class status, let along GA. I did have a look at the Notability guidelines on AFL players, but still remained adamant that the article could never achieve any significant statuses. After what seem to be very convincing points and arguments, from you and user The-Pope, which made my actions look very foolish, I decided to withdraw the PROD. Now I'm a happy chap getting on with things, and, to apologise for my actions, I will expand and format the article, and, if you need any help, I've made myself available should you have any help. May I just ask, out of curiosity, what footy team do you barrack for? Anyway, I won't do that again, unless something clearly violates the policies and guidelines. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leigh Newton

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PP, P

Yes I know, thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I only noticed because I do it all the time when I'm using cite book. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't worried. I'm just pissed off because the stupid cite book template isn't working properly, so I have to change those little things by hand, and sometimes I forget, and being reminded of that is also not improving my mood. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to use cite book today as well and been having the same problem, so I understand the frustration. Sorry if I came across a bit 'lecture'-y in the edit summary. Jenks24 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But what on earth could be the problem? I've asked my most knowledgeable geek, but they may be off-line. It's really irritating--in the article of mine you looked at, that second reference, it's really irritating to have to add editors and chapter title by hand. I wish I knew! If you ever find out, drop me a line please. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kepler

No, I do not consider asking questions gaming the system. It is fair to ask someone who closed a discussion additional questions. Sometimes these do affect the closers decisions and changes can be made. I will admit that I did miss the bit about the previous move. However, I'm not convinced that the arguments that the current name is incorrect are the strongest. While reading a good part of the article and skimming some, it seems to be mostly about the spacecraft and what the spacecraft is achieving. So the arguments to keep it at this location seem to be the strongest. I think the biggest problem with the move positions is that the Kepler mission is just that a mission that the spacecraft will be trying to achieve. So the spacecraft is the key element here.

Also in looking at the way other satellites are disambiguated, spacecraft seems to be far and away the most common method. And for most of the ones I have looked at over time they also discuss the mission within the articles on the craft. This seems to reflect the guidance from WikiProject Spaceflight which seems to clearly favor spacecraft as the preferred form of disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for moving my essay! Could you direct me to the instructions for doing that sort of thing? Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

response to your AfD comment

Since the AfD has been closed (as speedy keep, making it ripe for DRV if we decide to go that route), I will respond to this here on your talk page instead.

I don't doubt Dr. Blofeld's good faith in creating the article. But in past AfDs when WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST was brought up, it was seen as disruptive to create articles on the other stuff during the AfD, as surely as it would be to nominate all the other articles of a type similar to the one under discussion if you were arguing that there was no way anything of that type could be notable (Years ago I initiated a purge of the many drinking games we had articles on at the time, after someone nominating one based on things Bert Blyleven said while calling Tigers' games on the radio brought them up during the other AfD (as if anyone ever actually plays those humorous drinking games based on TV shows, other than "Hi Bob"). I did not nominate all of them ... Quarters is clearly notable, after all). I nominated each one individually, and we were able to keep a few).

And what if someone had created Wedding cake of Prince William and Kate Middleton during the discussion? Would that not have violated WP:POINT as well? Things like that are why that page was created. Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply here if that's ok. Firstly, I would urge you not to take it to DRV, as it will create unnecessary drama. If you are serious about seeing this article deleted, I would wait a few months and then open a new AfD where you will presumably be able "look there's no lasting coverage". Anyway, on to the reason you're here. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that Blofeld was creating the articles in good faith. Looking at WP:NOTPOINTY (didn't even know that section existed) which states that making a point (which, I agree, is what Blofeld was doing) does not necessarily mean they disrupting Wikipedia to do it. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this; the only reason I commented in the first place is that I imagined it could have been very disheartening for Blofeld, who had gone to the effort of creating quite a few articles (a couple of which were a decent length), to suddenly be told that he has disrupted Wikipedia with his good faith contributions. I appreciate that you took the time to take this to my talk page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If I do take this to DRV (and I might wait a few days), it would be strictly limited to the issue of whether speedy keep justifies this. However, as I said in my message at Dr. Blofeld's page, maybe proposed mergers to a general list article is really the more productive course of action, since as I said I was not opposed to having coverage of the dress per se, just in a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)