User talk:Jenks24/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jenks24. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Talk Page Guidelines

Do I have to remind you that per WP:TPG you should not refactor the comments of another editor? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Where did I refactor the comments of another editor? Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Paraguayan War but I believe it may well have been a mistake on your part. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think I did? ... Care to show a diff? Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[1] User:Lecen refactored the discussion, it was reverted and you restored it. I presume you didn't mean to and were in your mind restoring a comment MN20 removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. You're correct that I should not have undone Marshal's edit. I just saw him removing a comment by Asyntax and didn't realise Asyntax had not put the comment there. Thanks for letting me know about this and, in future, I'll be sure to research the history more thoroughly, rather than taking things on face value. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Friends#Category dispute

I have checked history log of Friends and would like you to discuss before you will be warned. Please? --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, George, I'm happy to discuss it. Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

NAC of Village Pump reviewer right discussion

Hi there. I'm going to be a pain in the ass unfortunately, but I unfortunately disagree close. Not the fact that you closed the discussion as a non-admin (indeed I had my eye on that discussion, and was going to close it today grumble grumble) but I feel you may have got the consensus wrong. Not on the deletion of the user right, that's pretty clear, but I personally felt that consensus was in favour of removal of the user right from those that hold it (but keeping the user right in the system). A few who wanted it's outright deletion noted as such because the user right was given out liberally without any real guidelines, and if a new trial of pending changes was undertaken, they wanted a fresh start. On the balance of things, I'd have closed the other way. This puts us in a tricky situation, if a non-admin close is self reverted per a request, then another non-admin can't close it, so we will have to leave it to an admin? Let me know what you think. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine, Steven. Obviously I disagree with your assessment, but as I noted in my closure, if anyone contested it I'd be happy to revert and will do so right after writing this. Unfortunately I agree that we will have to leave this to an admin. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt it was a close discussion. Perhaps we just have different readings of the discussion. Let's see what an admin thinks :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Braincricket's talk page.
Message added 05:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Braincricket (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Austrians

I had to laugh at your edit summary! LibStar (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Glad it gave someone a chuckle. Maybe we should put this picture on the Australian delsort page? :) Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jenks24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Wairere (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Hi, Thanks for the welcome. I'll defiantly check out that project. I'm new to editing wiki pages so if I'm not doing things right please let me know. -Synthesized designs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthesized designs (talk • contribs) 13:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Baelor

Thanks for your comments on the Baelor talk page. I just did a reassessment of the article (due to the deletion of the review by a banned user and so on) and put most of your comments in. You have a good eye for prose! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Howard Watt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test (rugby) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table

Thanks for letting me now. I have to have a look for some supporting material in German football magazines when I get back home. Calistemon (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

David Kalvitis

You removed my prod from David Kalvitis and left a reference in an edit summary. If you had actually bothered to put that reference into the article, I would probably have accepted that he is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you had actually "bothered" to look at the references section of the article (specifically bullet point number two) you would have seen that the New York Times reference had been there since the article was created. Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sasa Hirszon RM closure

You closed the RM at Talk:Saša Hiršzon as a non-admin, but in this case this is not according to policy, as I have explained in my latest comment on the talk page. Can you reopen the debate, so it gets proper closure. I don't know how to do that. Thanks. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but I've replied there and if you still want me to I will re-open the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. I still want it to be reopened, because I think we should use our policies and rules (at least until they are rewritten). If there is a contentious debate (as there is in this case), then our rules ask for admin closure. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened it. It's probably worth noting the we're not a bureaucracy and it seems pointless to me to re-open just for an admin to make the exact same closure in a few days, but *shrug* if that's what you want. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of applying for the admin bit so that this doesn't get in your way anymore?--Aervanath (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it for a while, but it seems like every time I go and look at RfA there are good candidates who get torn apart for things they did years ago, which kind of reduces my motivation. Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that can be intimidating. My own RFA was pretty bruising, so I can't blame you in the slightest. It's just weird to me when non-admin RM closures get kicked back like this, because when I started closing RMs, I wasn't an admin, either, and it didn't seem like a big deal at the time. Ah, well. If you do decide to go for it, let me know so I can !vote on it.--Aervanath (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence and, yes, it can be a little frustrating when my closures are question not because they're wrong, but because I'm not an admin. Anyway, I'll think some more about RfA and will let you know if I ever take the plunge. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening the debate per policy. Of course an admin came in to close it before the debate could resume. No problem. Here a very similar RM about tennis player is ongoing, and there the admin had the common sense to relist/extend the debate because it is ongoing: Talk:Denes Lukacs.

It is this constant inconsistency in closures and in applying policy that ultimately lead to longer backlogs for the admins, because it is only a matter time until they get an RM again. The simple fact is that project tennis cannot really work with a mixture of some names diacritics and some being at common name. Each of the tennis articles contains the names of many other tennis players (the opponents that were met in major matches), so it becomes just mish-mash unless we can use a more consistent naming policy for tennis. All our sources have solely non-diacritic names, because ITF itself uses a policy that all players must be registered with a non-diacritics player name, which is then used in all official draws and results.

It is for that reason that the project tennis has a broad concensus and guideline to use only the non-diacritic official player names, as we find them in nearly all our reliable sources. But many closing admins do not care about that concensus on the project tennis (or the why of it) and they just close with non-concensus as soon as they see 7 votes by diacritics fans who have come down on the article and do not even know that diacritics are never used in tennis names.

Since case by case decisions in RM are never going to solve this, my question to you is: where to go with it if the project tennis wants to try to obtain a clear guideline we can enforce for all tennis names? Where in WP bureaucratic maze would such a broader discussion for all tennis names belong?

Finally. I have nothing against non-admin closures, but if they want to close when there is a contentious and ongoing debate, then they first should go and change the stated policies and rules on that point on WP:RMCI. You can 't expect anything else from editors then that they insist on written policies and procedures being used. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your points in the order that you raised them. I follow RM pretty closely, so I had noticed the Lukacs discussion. To be blunt, Mike Cline is a very good admin, but takes the approach of 'when in doubt, relist'. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but (IMO) it often stretches out discussions longer than they need to go and the longer they go, the worse the level of discourse becomes as both sides end up taking entrenched positions. And that is one of the reasons I closed Hiršzon while the discussion was still ongoing – it was devolving. On a bit of a side note, I think the relist didn't help your cause at Lukacs; if it had been closed it would have been no consensus, but now that it's open for another week it could end up being moved.

On the actual issue of diacritics, you're preaching to the converted, mate. I agree that UCN should apply to dios and that it does look sloppy when we have Djokovic playing Čilić in our articles. I also agree that the fact that we don't have a firm rule for dios is resulting in quite a few RMs, but the solution to that is not to start more RMs, it is to start site-wide (and widely advertised) RfC so that we can get a community consensus on how to deal with this (and no, a WikiProject guideline is not enough – it will always be dismissed as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by those who disagree).

Haha, and now I've just read your next paragraph where you ask me exactly that. To reiterate, you definitely need a big RfC so that you can point to it and say, "Look, this is what the community wants". If you do go down that path, it would be worth letting Jimbo Wales know about it as his opinion (rightly or wrongly) carries a lot of weight and he is decidedly anti-diacritic (notify with a neutral message, of course).

Finally, just because a discussion is contentious or ongoing does not mean that consensus can't be clear. To be honest, though, I thought that someone had removed the "nearly unanimous" wording from the non-admin closing instructions in the last few months so as to more accurately reflect the norm, but I see that was not the case. If you're interested, I'll probably start a discussion at WT:RM in the next few days about slightly relaxing that wording. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's useful. So if we get a RfC with broad participation and resulting in a clear concensus for some naming convention for tennis players, then we can later always refer to that if new RM occur which try to move tennis articles. We will have to try that.

As for where the RM of Denes Lukacs goes is not so important. I think we just need to show that RM discussions are going both ways, which leads to a situation that work on tennis articles becomes much more difficult because of the inconsistent naming. Tennis articles do not really stand alone because the players are playing each other all the time, so each name gets spread into hundreds of other tennis articles.

Even to have a convention to use diacritics in all tennis player names would be better than what we have now. The ongoing mish-mash is the worst possible situation. Will let you know when a RfC is under way. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with all your points. Good luck for the RfC. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. I just came across this page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis, which is a rather old and long broad discussion of the very same topic. Would it be feasible to open a new section there and revisit the topic based on the new arguments we have? Four years have passed , so the topic can be revisited I think. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting reading. I guess it would be feasible, but I would suggest asking at WT:RM for some other opinions (it would be a shame if you made an effort to start it up again and were then told it was not the correct way to do so). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Göteborg/Gothenburg Book Fair

Instead of moving the talk page of this article to the "Gothenburg" spelling, as you requested at WP:RM#Technical requests, I have reverted your renaming of the article itself per WP:BRD. From Google Book searching, it would seem that the "Göteborg" spelling is much more common, so WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use it, even though Gothenburg is (and should remain) the name of the article about the city. For what it's worth, the fair's English webpage also uses "Göteborg". If you disagree, you should submit a formal request for renaming. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. I really only made the move because an inexperienced editor submitted a malformed RM [2] and the request seemed reasonable to me. But I guess a full discussion probably would be best, so I'll start a RM. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RM started at Talk:Göteborg Book Fair#Requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a scholar and a gentleman, and I'm a klutz, witness this. Sorry to have wasted your time. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and it wasn't a waste of time. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Health systems /health care systems

Hi - you relisted a discussion I started on moving health care system to health system. How much longer do you think we should wait? There hasn't been any response to date. Should we just be bold and make the move? --Karl.brown (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't do this when I originally relisted, but I've just left a note at WT:MED requesting some input. But if that doesn't generate any comments in the next couple of days, then by all means go ahead and be bold. Jenks24 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move at Daniell Zeleny

Hello, I have started a new move request at Talk:Daniell Zeleny. As a contributor to the previous discussion, this message is to request your comments so consensus can be reached. Thank you. - Cloudz 679 09:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DASH

Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as (&ndash) (–) and (&mdash) (—). Thats the opening line of the policy. Ive checked with an admin i trust who has advised there is no difference how ever he uses a script which uses the code. The code is easier to use and is standard and is always used in naming conventions for titles of season articles and is very widely used in the score sections. There is no reason for yourself Ohconfucius or tony to go around removing these. The policy has no issue with it. I specifically have an issue when someone makes these changes quoting a policy that does not back these claims. I was made to look like a fool with continued snide remarks verging on personal attacks about me making out i was wrong and that just isn't the case.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again also the spacing isn't against the policy. It talks about spaces and they are allowed depending on the situation. I have no objection to the other changes hence why i changed all the dates to the way he had it and the obvious caps issue but yes i missed some. But why should i do that when there was no need for him to change in the first place. If someone wishes to use the code them they are perfectly entitled to do so. I really strongly object to someone hiding behind a policy and making a fool of anyone who dares to actually read it and challenge it.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I know all about this because, by some stroke of poor fortune, I happen to have the talk pages of Ohconfucius, Tony1 and Thumperward on my watchlist. As Thumperward explained to you (and I cannot impress this upon you enough), there is no difference. No one is "removing" anything, they are simply converting from html to unicode, which is something very many scripts do. I don't know why unicode is preferred by those who code scripts, but no doubt there is a reason (possibly someone code-savvy like Ohc or Thumperward will be able to tell you). In any case, if you desperately want to keep the html code in articles you edit, then that's fine (though it seems a lot of bother for no gain). What is not OK is for you to blanket revert edits that make many good changes just so you can keep your personal preference of en dash variety. Onto the spacing, that most definitely is against the MoS. As Thumperward told you, "the dash should be unspaced". If that's not enough for you, actually read MOS:ENDASH, which clearly states "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when the endpoints of the range already include at least one space." Lastly, no one was attacking you – they were trying to get their point across and simply became frustrated as you failed to grasp it. Jenks24 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No thumperwad told me not in the scores. I couldn't give a toss anymore about the space or his other changes. You are as bad as them and no i will not leave their good edits if they change from the code and hide behind a policy that does not back there claims then i will revert. I'm not wasting my time sorting through the legit edits They are free to make the changes that are within policy not those that don't. Why should i spend my time going through all the dashes and fixing them that will take forever and i don't have time for it when the user has made clear attacks and lied to me citing a policy that didn't back the change citing issues such as pixels which has nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no need for Ohconfucius to be doing that. Oh and no personal attacks thats a joke he has deliberately had a go at every opportunity. I got it straight away he didn't and why was that because he was lying to me. For uniformity i use it as do the others who create these and are in fact virtually the only ones who update these articles. I spend the majority of my weekends doing these articles along with one other editor i see no reason why i should have to spend even more time on a task that takes for ever as it is. Oh and i will not be treated like an idiotEdinburgh Wanderer 00:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And the fact there is no difference means nothing when the policy clearly shows you to use the mark up version. If i made changes to an article and said I'm doing it because of this policy and you found it did not in fact say that what would you do. Would you spend 10 minutes taking out all the bad edits just to keep the few good bits when they have lied to you and made attacks. The answer is no you wouldn't because you would be annoyed they were making changes to suit themselves and attacked you. You would revert just like you did to me. Its simple he should stay away from articles where its used with a purpose like football season articles. To be honest even if i have nothing to do with that article and other editors have chosen to use that and he reverts citing Wikipedia:DASH i will revert. Im not happy with someone doing that when there is in fact no need. To quote you back if their is no difference and the policy talks about markups there is no need for him to change in the first place.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And one last thing because I have something else to be doing given its now 1am. You said it was your poor fortune. That's not the case you choose to get involved when you reverted me. You choose to do that knowing full well the policy allows and promotes use of HTML. I have no problem with people following policies that's fine. I do when they make up their own version to suit them. It deeply disappoints me that you felt it necessary to intervene. It also upsets me that you say I failed to grasp it. In my opening statement i said they produce the same results. I also said the policy allows it what didn't I grasp. I got that so you don't need to impress that on me. I just cannot see why you think their attacks were justified in anyway. It's bullying when someone tries to impress something on someone for there own means. That's what happens they like it as a keystroke so they try to force others. It's a preference so there is no need in any way for then to spend there ahold edit one making these changes. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually look at User talk:Thumperward. He explicitly said, "As for scores, the dash should be unspaced." I'm not sure how much clearer he or the MoS can be. When you say things like "i will not leave their good edits", I think you've let this get way too personal – productive changes should never be reverted, especially when your revert adds nothing of benefit to the article, only reinstates your personal preference. I have read over the discussions at Ohc's and Tony's talk pages and never once did anyone attack you or lie to you, so please stop saying they did. It is not an attack when someone becomes exasperated that you fail to understand something despite having it repeated so often. Your "uniformity" argument is simply incorrect – I could easily point you to a hundred football season articles that don't use the html. And if you mean uniformity in articles that you have created, check out WP:OWN. Tony and Ohconfucius were more patient with you than you had any right for them to be, so I'm going to be pretty blunt here: if you don't want to be treated like and idiot, don't act like one.

(Seeing as you've now posted another paragraph) The MoS shows both versions, either is acceptable (good grief, how many times do people have to say that). No, I disagree with your justification. If someone made an edit to an article on my watchlist making lots of good changes and a few incorrect ones (though, again, Ohc's change was not incorrect), I would just change back the bits that were wrong, because that's what's best for the encyclopedia. What on Earth do you mean by "used with a purpose"? En dashes are used purposefully in all sorts of articles, not just ones relating to soccer seasons. Just stop talking about how you will revert him – Ohc hasn't made a single revert at 1879–80 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season (notice the use of unicode in the article's title) and he has no need to. This is starting to get tiring. If you still feel the need to reply, please get your facts straight.

(And you've now added another paragraph) You know what, you're right. I did choose to get involved and I cannot convey just how deeply I regret that decision. I should have just let the article stay in a poorer condition rather than wade into this ridiculousness. But seeing as I have ... In no way does the MoS promote the html version, it shows both. Again, no one attacked you. No one bullied you. No one lied to you. And no one except you cares whether the html or the unicode is used. The only thing that has irritated three editors is that when you changed back to your personal preference you also removed many good changes that were made. If you had just changed back to your preference at the outset without interfering with the rest of the edit, then we could have avoided this whole bloody mess. Good night and I hope that you are able to see things more clearly tomorrow. Jenks24 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

my real issue is if policy allows the code as it clearly does then why does he or anyone need to change it. That's the simple question. If the policy allows both but does indicate use of the code it's not an issue that needs fixed. Yes all the other things do. Now I'm sorry you are getting ranted at but in all honesty it really annoys me when people try and use something which when looking closer allows it. I know you never but when you reverted it feels like all three of you are ganging up on me. I appreciate that you seem to be nice enough and have good intentions but as you say if they are both allowed where Is the pressing needs for him to do it. Sorry again you are getting it but I'm extremely frustrated by this. I just see no need for the change. I also feel he has been having a go at me. I appreciate you don't see that but that's how I feel. If you feel attaked you get defensive and when you can't see a need for the changes and what they say isn't backed up by the actual policy which allows both. As I say I'll cooperate with him to try and save the parts that do need changed but if I get attacked any more or the policy is used to justify the change then i can see me becoming less cooperative as it takes a fair amount of time to change these back. To me thats a fair compromise on my part. If he wouldn't change on season articles in the first place of course that would be better but I can't see that happening. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On the question of why the script changes from html to unicode, I honestly don't know. The script in question is at User:GregU/dashes.js. It is used to change hyphens to en dashes where appropriate and it favours unicode over html. I don't know why that is, but I'm sure someone code-savvy could tell. If you like I could ask someone about it. The main problem is that doing it manually so as to preserve the html is a pain and takes infinitely longer. If however, your articles include the correct dashes (even in html form) from the outset then the script will have nothing to do and won't change the html. The reason the script ran at all on this revision of the page is because there was a hyphen that should have been a dash in the references. It probably sounds stupid, but if you can avoid things like that then the script won't ever be used on your articles.

I can understand how you might feel you were being ganged up on. I assure you that wasn't my intention, I was honestly doing what I thought was best for the article. Look, my advice for what you should do in regard to Ohc is just to step back and stop replying to him on his talk page (apologies if you've done this already). You guys just seem to be getting each other more riled up and nothing productive is coming from it. I appreciate the offer of cooperation and I'm sure he does too. Maybe a solution is that if you see Ohc make an edit you disagree with, don't just revert it, but bring it here to discuss (again, I don't think Ohc's talk is the best place for you to be at the moment) so we can get a compromise that is acceptable to everyone. That said, I realise we haven't exactly got off on the best foot, so if you can think of a different way to go about it that will keep everyone happy and avoid too much reverting, I'm all ears. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks you have been very helpful in explaining that. When I do the references i tend to copy the title of the page as a cut and paste. I'll look into that. I thought I was being helpfull by offering the compromise but he just said im wrong end of. I'm going to leave alone and i was being childish when I said I will just revert I won't do that for the time being and try and let calm down. My offer would be for him to leave the current season articles alone for now and if I can get it to work i will try the script myself and fix these. I'm not wanting to push it but all I want is not to be told i cant use it and I'm wrong. And for them to stop having wee snipes. They may seen petty but it really bothers me. Anyway the best thing I can do will be to leave for now but if I look to see if I can get that script to work I will try and do them. It will take me a bit of time but will be worth it if it sorts this mess out. Once again thanks and I will leave him alone but that will only work both ways here. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken his page of my watchlist so won't communicate there. Once again thanks and sorry at the same time hopefully we can sort this and if I can run the script. One thing in regards to date formats the gadget prove it formats the dates in what appears to be the wrong way around from what ochs changes do. Which Is fine as i fully understand och is correct on that. But that maybe where a lot I errors on date format in refs come from. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the documentation I was concerned it wouldn't work with safari like some do but it seems to I'll take a look at it late tonight. I think the best thing would be to work together to solve this. Thanks again for being helpfull and explaining why it flags. Appreciate it. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have ran the script rather impressed actually. Im going to use it to identify the cases where it should be ndash. And then go back and manually do it.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you've decided to leave it alone, I think that's the best move for everyone involved. I think Ohc will be avoiding those season articles for a while, but if he does do an article on your watchlist and you don't like the result please do bring it here, I'll be happy to discuss it (I know I've said that already, but I thought it was worth repeating). Yes, I do the same thing with reference titles and I usually run the script right afterwards. Regarding dates, for all British English articles (and AUS/NZ, SA, IND, etc.) the standard practice is day month year (e.g. 14 March 2012), but it is OK to use the US style (mdy, e.g. March 14, 2012) as long as you are consistent within the article. That's the reason that Ohc edited your article in the first place; because there was a mix of the two and one should be used consistently. I've never used Prove It, so I'm not sure if you could customise it to use dmy format? If not, there are two other possible solutions. You could make sure you use Prove It all the time and always put the dates in mdy style. The other option is to not worry about what style they are when you're adding the info, but once you've finished adding the info use User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js (I realise you're not on the best terms with him, but it really is an excellent script), which gives you a few options, such changing all dates to dmy or mdy.

Nice that you've started using the script, I was also quite impressed when I started using it. And I'm a Safari user as well :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think i will pass on that script. Im sure there will be something on this somewhere but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting where does it mention changing refs from publisher to work and add location uk. Also removing the link from the publisher. Its fine and I'm sure its what you are supposed to do, but when it was changed [3] it was quoted and i cant see it. Ive decided i should really know these thing so when i see people linking I'm going to read them.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing publisher to work is correct because printed works like newspapers should always be in italics and the work parameter does that automatically (see WP:ITALIC which mentions "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)"). Regarding linking in refs, it doesn't matter whether you link or don't link as long as you are completely consistent in your approach (not sure if this is guideline-ified anywhere, I've just picked it up from popping in at FAC every now and then). Using the location parameter is the same as linking, doesn't matter whether you use it or not as long as you're consistent. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that for all news or just printed works, for instance if it was the sun thats a newspaper, but say the BBC where its web only should that be work rather than publisher. Yeah i saw WP:ITALIC but it didn't mention refs so the format wasn't explained. In regards to linking i try to link where it exists but for instance if there is no wikipage that would create a redlink in the ref is that ok.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for printed works, e.g. newspapers and magazines. Yes, publishers like BBC and Sky Sports which aren't print works should not be in italics. Sometimes it can be hard to tell whether to use italics, and in those cases I generally just go to the Wikipedia article to check. E.g. the Daily Mail and The Sun use italics, but BBC and Sky Sports do not, so I just follow that. Regarding redlinks, that can be a bit trickier. Basically, you should use redlinks if you think the newspaper or website that you're linking is notable, it's just that no one's got around to it yet. If you think that an article about that website/newspaper would be deleted for being non-notable, then don't link to it, even if it will mess up your consistency. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden duck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Thank you very much for your input, it restored my sanity, and my faith in Wikipedia. I must admit, it was you today who kept an editor on WP. Happy editing! --64.85.214.118 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I really couldn't believe your polite request got such a offensive response. If anything like this comes up again, feel free to ping me. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't too sure which user talk page to grab the dynamic IP at, so am leaving this here. I moved the talk page draft back to Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test, leaving a redirect at User:Jenks24/List of Negro league baseball players that can be deleted at your request, Jenks24. 64.85.214.118, can you please identify a better title for the talk page draft, based on how your draft is different (will make it a more useful title than "test"). Thanks -- Samir 06:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also sorry for the grief you got over this Jenks24. You handled it quite civilly and appropriately in my opinion. -- Samir 06:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Samir, I appreciate it. I'll leave the redirect there until the AN discussion is over. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

The Multiple Barnstar

First, for your due diligence and investigation; second, for maintaining the integrity and honor of the editors of Wikipedia. --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I could not decide which barnstar to use until I found this multiple barnstar template, didn't know we had such a thing. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's things like this that make it such a pleasure to edit here. I was unaware about the multiple barnstar as well; I guess you learn something new every day :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. When you recently edited Frederick Reynolds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drury Lane Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been started again

I'm contacting everyone that participated in the last one, which ended earlier this month, to inform them of the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 13:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox VFL season

FYI, this template was relisted on March 27. Andy asked for an opportunity to respond to your comments. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jenks24 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Message added 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your technical move is, by definition, contested. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. Please note it was a BRD request. Jenks24 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne logo

Hello. Just an update to let you know I lost my case. I've posted a link to the text of the decision on the Melbourne Football Club discussion page. Thanks for your support in letting matter take the legal steps it needed to. RossRSmith (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, tough break about the case. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I hope this is an april 1st prank right? Shriram (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shit, sorry. It wasn't a prank, I was just tagging the page for deletion with Twinkle and I forgot to un-check the "notify creator" box (Twinkle considers you the creator because you were the first person to leave a message at that page). My sincere apologies. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that happens. Its ok. Shriram (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Roll-back tools?

Hi Jenks! Maybe you have seen that I'm helping WP with reverting vandalism, but I think I need some tools so I can do it more quickly. Do you think that I may receive some roll-back tools? Best regards Björn Bergman 17:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Björn. As I'm not an admin, I cannot give out the rollback tool. You can leave a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Also, you may be interested in trying out the Twinkle tool. It's not as fast as rollback, but still makes things easier than using undo. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But I have one more question; I need some help; On Swedish Wikipedia there are articles which don't have some enwp-link, among them "Tjuvarnas jul" and "Evas sommarplåster". The English versions are created but the Swedish article has no enwp-link. You can find those articles in my contribution-list. I really want to fix this myself but can't because I'm blocked on Swedish Wikipedia due to a conflict, so I wonder if you may help me? Best regards Björn Bergman 12:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but looking at sv:Tjuvarnas jul and sv:Evas sommarplåster it appears they both already have interwiki links to en.wp. Is that what you meant, or have I misunderstood your request? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Category:Ukrainian Social Democratic Party politicians‎. I had the feeling I made the request at the wrong place.... But could not find the right one... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Love the picture! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Source

Re your BLPPROD decline, I don't think IMDB is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, according to Wikipedia:Imdb. Frank | talk 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that IMDb is not a reliable source, but to quote the note at the top of WT:BLPPROD, "any source however poor prevents an article having the tag applied". Jenks24 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That quote is incomplete...you are only quoting half of what it notes is a perennial discussion. Frank | talk 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if an unreliable source is added after the BLPPROD tag has been placed, then that is not enough to remove the tag. It's also worth noting that the actual BLPPROD page says you cannot place the BLPPROD tag if there is a source in the article, it does not say that source must be reliable. I used to be of the same opinion as you, but these discussions changed by understanding: User talk:Jenks24/Archive 1#Declined BLPPROD: Vasily Shevtsov, User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 2#BLPPROD, and most importantly, Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 5#Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD. Jenks24 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. It's a shame we as a community seem to only tend toward more complication. Frank | talk 12:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. I think the problem was that the discrepancy wasn't noticed until it became policy, and as you probably know, getting consensus to change any policy is incredibly difficult. Jenks24 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)