User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 6

km3net

I noticed that you did not move Km3net to KM3NeT because the capitalization is for style. For pronunciation, I think it should still be moved to KM3Net (lower case t) for the same reason that we use the name SAT with capitals. See MOS:TM and the talk page for Km3net. Only the "T" in "KM3NeT" is stylistic. Teply (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Romance of the Three Kingdoms V

Hi! You said my template was malplaced, but you didn't move it elsewhere or mention where it should be placed... I've moved it to the talk page. I hope it's okay. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Thumb Radio Stations

You recently changed the template for radio stations in the Thumb area. I'm not familar with the stations you put in but I don't see some that you deleted (ie WLEW).--HB Edit (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - in an attempt to fix the formatting, I seem to have wiped the entire list. JPG-GR (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the obvious Thumb stations was pretty obvious. Thanks for splitting the WLEW stations. They deserved separate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The formatting was screwy, and the best way is to overlap the code of a good template. Problem being that when you're tired and it's some ridiculous hour of the morning, you tend to accidentally overlay the DATA, too. :) JPG-GR (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving the journal page for Geometry and Topology

I reinstated the move template for moving Geometry and Topology to Geometry & Topology, and added the request to the list at WP:RM as I should have the first time. Hopefully I got the protocol right this time (I am new to this; this is my first requested move, so please let me know again if I am doing something wrong). BjornPoonen (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good this time. Don't feel bad - probably 1 in 20 requests is filed incorrectly. JPG-GR (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aerosan → Aerosani

Corrected, thanks for notice --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

moving article

Don't worry about it, I'll just copy-paste the article to fix the move issue. It's not what I'm supposed to do, but it gets the work done. Too much bureaucracy, this Wikipedia... Guroadrunner (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, looks like someone did it for me. Good to see. Guroadrunner (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Just to let you know that I have deleted Bild to make way for your page move. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 06:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake (manga) has been deleted too. nancy ^(talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

moved per guidelines and policy

I replied at the talk, but the move or revert could be done if another solution was provided. I made the move, in good faith and based on many similar situations, because my application of IAR may have provided a solution that avoided an excess of discussion. This gives more time for improving content, such as the significant increase I made to the same article. Regards, cygnis insignis 06:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the article talk page, with discussion less than 24 hours in and a proposal to move to suggestion A with one !vote of support (granted, with no explanation for support) it seems odd to move, without any discussion, to suggestion B. I'm all for improving the content, which you have no doubt done, but the move you performed you did with no prior discussion and no cited policy. If, after 5 days, there is consensus for your proposal, then sobeit. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No one objected either, in fact it was supported at the reptile project. I was bold in improving, but not without support or sound reasons. It is a clear case of many ambiguous common names, even in the same region. The precedent in WP:TOL is to default to the accepted name, the international recognised name, the unique name. It seems your objection is based on my circumventing 'process', my move had a positive effect or none at all. My change to the lead demonstrates that better than an archive full of opinion; of what people reckon rather than what is verifiable. Every source, reliable or otherwise, gives this name! How was it not an improvement? cygnis insignis 07:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No one objected... because you moved the page without discussion after less than 24 hours after the proposal. No one had the chance to object. If WP:TOL outlines naming conventions for this field, why didn't you cite them for the reasoning of your move? As I said previously, you moved a page with no discussion, to a location that had not been suggested, and citing no policy in doing so. JPG-GR (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. As I said, I was trying to demonstrate the solution - it would always be reversible. And it was not without discussion, I posted about my intention and then my action. No one has since objected, if that needs plainly stated, and it was supported by at least one member at the project. If you mean I failed to discuss at the request page, I only became aware of that when I was checking the double redirects. If I was emphatic in my post here, it was to indicate the merit of my action. I was trying to show a solution, not create a problem, I think you have misrepresented my actions. However, I will assume from your remarks that you want to hear no more of this, they are directed at me and not at the topic. The pay here is terrible, so I will indulge in a bit of that too; see what can be gained from it. You haven't answered my question, but I won't be back for an answer. You are being absolute in your position, it would be hazardous for me to change that. (No, I got nothing from that - did you?) cygnis insignis 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves combinations

I noticed that you combined my requested moves for highball et al, which is obviously a neater presentation, the like of which I was looking for but couldn't figure out. Is there a template for such, or handy standard or something? ENeville (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a brief (and not really comprehensible) explanation how just before all the proposals at WP:RM. In reality, it just comes from being a regular there and knowing how things flow. :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who serials

Sorry, what is incomplete about it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is incomplete about it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

CFL

So does this mean you are going to go through every article which simply links to CFL as an effort to reach the Canadian Football League and fix the link? Otherwise you will create mass confusion for all of those articles hoping to simply reach the Canadian Football League. You have a bot at your disposal maybe? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With consensus in favor of the move, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. While it may not fit specifically in this case, there is no deadline for those links to be changed. The request isn't for all the links that linked to CFL before to now link to Compact fluorescent lamp but to the disambiguation page. JPG-GR (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, forget it. Another administrator has now removed the speedy tag (which means the request was approved, then denied twice). JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did so at your request until I discovered that the consensus was not there. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We apparently have two differing views of consensus. *shrug* I suppose this situation will teach me to not eat lunch lol. JPG-GR (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes - this tag should only be used in non-controversial cases. As there have been several failed proposals at Talk:CFL (disambiguation) to implement the move it does not count as controversial. If that discussion results in a consensus for the move (when it it closed, not before) then the closing admin will implement the move. Hut 8.5 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

re: your requested move

Looking at the history and considering the need to retain the attribution history of content for GFDL, do we also need to execute a history-merger or can the existing history at crap stay deleted? Rossami (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, crap. (boo pun). It's late and I forgot to check the history. Probably best to perform a history-merge, or cancel the speedy request and leave as is and let someone else sort all that out. Thanks, though! :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that with all the vandalism, we could leave it out. I was hoping you'd already looked into it, though. I've already moved the page and am merging the Talk page contents now. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Gonna get a few more edits in, and go to bed. :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at it more closely, I think we have to history-merge despite all the vandalism. The very first edit (24 May 2006) says that the disambig page was created with content from the first article... Yuck. Now I have to decide if I want to spend the time restoring just the non-vandalism versions or just bring back everything..... Rossami (talk)

Had to undo all the deletions and moves, then move the content by hand... It was the only way to safely preserve the attribution history. If you're interested, the instructions were at Help:Merging and moving pages#Full-content paste merger. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi I noticed you reverted all of my edits on the radio stations in Michigan, however I should let you know, some of those edits not only removed the area links, which I'd find confusing if I wasn't aware of how radio works (hence why I deleted them). You have to remember, not everyone knows how radio works and simply linking an image of a state isn't going to say much. Again, some of the edits I made were good faith edits that also helped cleanup the articles, and didn't need to be reverted. I don't know why you have such a personal vendetta against me but I'm not too happy about this situation.--Milonica (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal vendetta? You should assume good faith. You removed information from numerous radio station articles, so I reverted. Nothing more, nothing less. JPG-GR (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not used to seeing the coverage maps being linked in the area section of the infoboxes, hence I removed them. Like I said, I believed they could have been explained better rather than just linking to the maps on radio-locator. If they were references rather than direct links, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I have gone back and replaced the other information (AM station data) that was lost in the reversions. Milonica (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all Michigan radio station articles use the coverage maps in that location. As the field is for the broadcast area and the maps clearly show those, with no subjectivity, no explanation is required. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Move

Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Persian_Mesopotamia_.E2.86.92_Achaemenid_Assyria. When you have time. Chaldean (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Will do as soon as the speedy delete admins clear away the redirect blocking it. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials - requested move

Sorry, what is incomplete about it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

John Q. Public

Hello, JPG-GR ...

I just reverted your edit to my sandbox bio article User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/John Q. Public (edit | [[Talk:User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/John Q. Public|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preserve the deleted link in a comment ... my apologies if its inclusion in a legitimate Category violated some policy or guideline, but it was an example, so I added the categories (a) for completeness, and (b) to better use it as a stencil for article creation.

Anywho, I'd be interested in any comments that you have on the sandbox, and its utility as an "Example of a stub with good WP:A for WP:BIO" for newbies when referenced from a talk page template message ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)}

Wikipedia:Requested moves

I've reverted your edit to Talk:Castes and traits of Aliens in expanded universe. Template:Moveoptions says "When there is a clear consensus please move the article and remove the notice, or request further assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves if necessary." and Wikipedia:Requested moves says "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have told other editors previously - the move templates add a page to Category:Requested moves, the category maintained by WP:RM. If you have no intention of listing the page at WP:RM... why use the template? JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guanidinium Chloride

Hello. You recently held the request for moving this article; it has had exactly two editors, me and the article creator. I don't believe the other editor will object, and he has not reappeared since creating the article four days ago. Is it strictly necessary to go through all of this process for a clearly uncontroversial page move? nneonneo ^talk 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Just move it to the uncontroversial section. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

*

		The Original Barnstar
		For your long and hearty work at WP:Requested Moves; thank you for your service there. —ScouterSig 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Referendum

Although you are right about there being 'no consensus' that is down to one editor who does not live in Gibraltar renaming the articlec incorrecty. what can we do to change the title.

QUOTE
The correct terms for describing general elections and referendums held in Gibraltar in the media are 'Gibraltar General Election' and 'Gibraltar Referendum'

Francis Cantos
Media Director
Government of Gibraltar.
UNQUOTE

--Gibnews (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's two editors in Gibraltar on one side and one editor outside of Gibraltar on the other side. The location of the editors is irrelevant and, frankly, so is the "correct term" given by whatever person-in-power you like. The question is which is the most common term to use, and there is evidence on both sides. About the only thing you can do is continue to gather evidence for your side. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is NO evidence that its called Gibraltarian However if you look at the photograph on the page Gibraltarian sovereignty referendum, 2002 you can see on the right the official notice. I've cited examples of the name of the general elections from the press on the discussion pages previously. Its like referring to the English general election. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tetsusaiga

I've deleted this page per the request however I'm unclear about what should be done to the talk page. Will you move it to the right page? Let me know. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of, thanks! :) JPG-GR (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Move vs split

Hi, You removed the move template from Blessed Virgin Mary, which is fine with me, but there is also an unending circular discussion on a split which is wearing out the keyboards on all sides. If you are more familiar with the policies, could you deal with that too? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges & Splits are often nasty business. I'm all for discussion continuing forever, as discussion is the only time you truly get anywhere (even knowing that it sometimes takes arguing in circles forever). I don't believe I'm familiar enough with the subject matter nor have I read the entirety of the discussion. Best recommendation is - keep the discussion going and don't move/merge/split at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sacra corona unita

A 2:1 majority in favour of a move does not constitute a consensus when only three people are involved. Timeineurope (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you haven't offered any argument against this view, I've moved it back. Timeineurope (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LHC

You closed a discussion at Talk:LHC (disambiguation), with the result of do not move. User:Khukri (sysop) moved it anyways. Could you please explain? Flibirigit (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's probably a better question for Khukri than I. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WWFF-FM

If you'd waited 23 minutes the move from WWFF to the correct (i.e., actual call letters) name WWFF-FM would have been completed. I would have moved it myself but some well-meaning but overzealous fan of the station moved it from WWFF-FM to WWFF back in January so I needed an admin to speedily delete the redirect for the move to be completed. Oh well, no worries. - Dravecky (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was more confused why the edits to the state list were needed in the first place *shrug*. JPG-GR (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Move for Nightline (disambiguation)

I have deleted the former "Nightline" redirect, and moved "Nightline (disambiguation)" there. Please deal with the articles that link there. Royalbroil 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Baxter Adams prize

It appears there's no dispute. Can you re-visit the Page and do a Speedy Deletion? There was only a misunderstanding I think. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice on contested moves

I have posted my request for reverting a move here: Talk:Triplet state, Can I repost my request on Wikipedia:requested moves? Thanks in advance for a reply V8rik (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure - just be sure to follow the steps to list it correctly. JPG-GR (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Solution → Final solution

Thanks for the other matter. Now can you please ckeck on this request? Also, if you don't mind, "complete" it for me? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What does the parenthies around the (FM) mean for KMNI? Just wondering. --JoeCool950 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As KNMI is a disambiguation page, (FM) is the proper disambiguation page for radio station KNMI, which cannot be located at KNMI. JPG-GR (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make the Moves for me.

I would appreciate it very much. I'm under time-pressure and writting a critical article. Your assistance in this matter would be highly apprectated. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Moreover, if you're not gonna bother reading the process and completing these move requests properly, you should probably just stop requesting them. JPG-GR (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate very much all the help I could get. I'm writing articles, and have not had the time to learn precisely the rules of the Admin. WP:Move procedure. I expected the move request to be complete un-controverial. I'm familiar with the application of the WP rule regarding non-capitalization of a the 2nd word in the title of a WP article. The substance of the article is highly controversial (Hitler's extermination of the Jews of Europe). That's what is meant by "the final solution." But that seems to me irrelevant to our WP capitalization rules. The 2-word term is not a proper name - a.k.a proper noun. It makes no sense to me to use "Final Solution" instead of "Final solution." Why I cannot get some cooperation on this matter is simply beyond me. Ludvikus (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As per this...

Hey there, JPG. I'm just curious, but what was the reason given for the move request at WP:RM? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick - MOS:TM, WP:ACCESS, precedent from Doom 3 and Alien 3. JPG-GR (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sacra Corona Unita

User:Timeineurope keeps moving Sacra Corona Unita to Sacra corona unita. I know it is silly but maybe you could have a look at it again. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Mafia Expert (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RM page

I don't think you should edit the formatting of my move request, as long as it is clear. There is another combined move request in the previous day, May 3, and it is formatted approximately the way I wanted to, with the page names at the top. I think the other way looks ludicrous and seems as if it is improperly done.

To fix it, I have moved the disambiguation page myself and changed it to make only one explicit request. Please don't remove the template from Talk:Speech (disambiguation), though, it's needed to alert readers. I know you rejected my move of Sex primarily for the reason that readers may not have seen it as it was on only one page, Talk:Sex (disambiguation). The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me here? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you hadn't asked any question... if you prefer to believe that, go right ahead. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mover?

Are you the only one doing the moves currently?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder the same thing haha. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In reality, there are fewer and fewer WP:RM regulars. User:Anthony Appleyard is usually still around taking care of the uncontroversials (the one section I usually avoid). JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

contested move

I do not understand one of your edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=210236901&oldid=210236389

Am I understanding correctly it is not possible to contest a move? Thanks in advance for your reply. V8rik (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has already been moved to Triplet state so I removed the request to move it there. JPG-GR (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of templates

Hallo, at 05:41, 6 May 2008 you've removed two templates which I had inserted on the page to request a move of the article. Since this templates have been removed several times before by other users, I ask you to stop this removal. The argument given on the Talk:On the Jewish Question page are in my opinion convincing enough to move the article back to the title which it has had for almost three years now. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no centralized area for discussion nor is there any consensus (that I can find on that cluttered talk page). If you are still interested in this move, please file a proper request at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pleases read the request again, it is linking to a section named "lower case 't'" on the talk-page. You can't expect me to file the same request again while other you remove it. You're interventions are quite time consuming for me. There is no consensus since one user don't want or is not able to understand or accept the reasonable arguments for a move back to the old title. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, then there's no move and the process is complete. Hence why I recommend you complete a proper request to see if there consensus for your side. JPG-GR (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My request is proper, and it has been filed for two times. I won't file it a third time. If there is no consensus, then it must be achieved. That is why I have requested the move. You can't expect me to do the same thing again and again. --Schwalker (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, then there's no move. The issue doesn't stay open until your side wins and then gets closed. JPG-GR (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit on Wikipedia in order to play a game where you win or lose, but to write correct articles. As far as I can see you are not an Wikipedia-administrator, or would have rights to close processes which other users have started. --Schwalker (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having the same conversation on both your talk page and my talk page. There is no consensus to support your proposed move, so the page cannot be moved. I am sorry that you don't see it that way, but the lack of support for your move is clear. JPG-GR (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JPG-GR. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic User:JPG-GR. Yours, --Schwalker (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm completely new to this kind of Page or Discussion. So please inform me if I'm in the wrong Place of do not conform to proper WP style. Regarding the issue at hand (if I got it right) is whether or not there's a consensus regarding "t" vs. "T"? Is that correct? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav

No consensus? There are always those who oppose moves, the point is that their arguments are insufficient and that they are in a minority. This discussion was concluded with a 9:4 vote in favor of the move. Now I know "polling is no substitute for discussion", but in this case the discussion is clearly in favor of the move, the stubbornness of a few individuals should not allow Wiki policy, which is the basis for this request move, to be ignored. What I'm saying is, there is never a full consensus on these matters, could someone finally go through with the move? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me take another look. It has been a long day and I may have misread something along the way. JPG-GR (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, hell - I completely missed reading the majority of the extended discussion area. This is one of those nasty ones anyway - I think I shall steer clear. Good luck with the proposal. JPG-GR (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nasty it is. Thanks, but someone's got to end this thing, its been, what, three weeks?... do you know someone who might be interested in lending a hand? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are three or four WP:RM regulars, but I don't recall which (if any) handle the seemingly frequent official name-related renames. I don't know if it's a lack of people who know the naming conventions by heart (I continue to learn stuff everyday, it seems) or just a sometimes worrisome ignorance of WP:RM in general. I'll keep an eye out. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The support votes are all based on peoples own pov and not supported by published sources. I asked numerous times for evidence that he is not a king it was often said he was a pretender there is no evidence. The whole move is totally unsupported by WP:NC. You were correct to say no consensus. - dwc lr (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense to either of you intended - but this is why I do try to avoid the more "intense" move requests. I miss debate class... but never envied the moderator. ;) JPG-GR (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

None taken, of course. Do you know perhaps where one can request Admin intervention in finishing this matter? (I know most people don't like getting involved in things like this, but something has to be done, right?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. When the backlog has got extremely excessive, I have three times reported it to WP:AN and got absolutely no response. Unfortunately, when a brave editor comes along is as soon as it will get closed. JPG-GR (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, well I sure hope one comes along soon then... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I wouldn't like to close this one. I suppose that is why its sitting at the bottom of the backlog because no one wants to touch it. - dwc lr (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If one disregards Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles (Point 7) which the proposed move does what is likelihood that the article will be moved contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals (Point 2) which according to this the correct title should be Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (the good) vs. Historical Revisionism (the bad)

Thanks for your offer. Any ssistance will be appreciated. Currently there 2 articles which require DAB. One of them has an awkward, WP:OR name (with "negationism" attached). Ultimately I expect/anticipate the articles to Merge. However, in the meantime there (just) two (or so) editors committed to the above "described" distinction. So I'm simply trying to conform to our practice in the following precedent: The Jewish question vs. The Jewish Question First please advise if I'm understood. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the nature of your request but the fact that you did not properly follow the steps to create the necessary templates and links. Please re-read the process and follow it closely. Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I did - but the templates were removed by my opponent(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 03:42, May 7, 2008

Nope, you didn't follow the steps properly. JPG-GR (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I'm studying the matter. Thanks for you advise & assistance. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverse myself. Look, my Template/Tag has been clearly Removed: [x]. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any properly created template in the history of the article being discussed and the one you completed at WP:RM is incomplete. You are not following the procedures properly. JPG-GR (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverse myself. Look here [1]:

    (cur) (last)  03:19, 8 May 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (74,484 bytes)
    (You are now simply committing vandalism--RV) (undo)
    (cur) (last)  03:05, 8 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) (74,516 bytes)
    ({{Move|Historical Revisionism}}) (undo)

What say you to that (nowiki only here)? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I say it'd be nice for you to link to that because I have no idea where you're copying it from. JPG-GR (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done (look above)!--Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it was removed twice (look carefully)! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly don't condone Boodlesthecat removing the {{move}} template, the rest of the process was not completed properly. This overreaction is probably a result of your moving the page in the first place without any discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Endless discussion & actions - all leading nowhere. There are only 3 other editors there. Anyway, what is your advice I do next & not inflame the situation any further? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case? Leave it alone, as the naming conventions are against you - Historical revisionism is the proper location. JPG-GR (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the "American Revolution" vs. the "American revolution"? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That article is also currently located at the proper location. JPG-GR (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav

Yeah, I know it takes only a few loudmouths and no move, however justified, will go through. May I ask what changed your opinion on this (the vote is still clearly in favor of the move)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. I re-read through everything and saw that there was clearly no consensus and no consensus = no move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't understand how its supposed to work. There's obviously no consensus, but there's hardly ever a consensus on moving controversial articles, and people in general do not like admitting they're wrong. How does the system work then? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very slowly, haha. It's just a matter of coming up with enough convincing arguments to change someone's mind. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I suppose I'll have to give up on this one then... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Ancient African history

Has this issue been settled? I see the copyvio message was removed by the editor (no surprise there, a lot of people have problems with him. --Doug Weller (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No clue. I caught it on RC patrol, tagged it, and moved on. JPG-GR (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. He just copied from other articles, and they are the source of copyvio - esp History of Africa--Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Request to move article Lazarus and Dives incomplete"

I can see that it's controversial, but how is it incomplete? StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You hadn't set up an area for discussion, which User:Geogre now has. JPG-GR (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request Advice Re: User:Malik Shabazz Adm. Notice Board Posting

I particularly respect your work as an Administrator. Therefore I am asking your advise as to the notice below. Have I done things in proper Wikipedia form? If not would you be able to cleanup after me? I'm stiill learning all this stuff. Unfortunately, I have not learned how best to handle the complaining user below. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"FYI"

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and page moves by User:Ludvikus. — Malik Shabazz (talk '· contribs) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Posted/Pasted here by me. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Talk:On The Jewish Question

Hello. As I'm sure you've noticed, the Talk page is a god-awful mess.

I don't understand your objection to compacting previous discussions (such as the proposals to rename the article "A World Without Jews" or "Zur Judenfrage") that are over-long and not relevant to the most recent discussions. I am not removing anything, nor are the discussions being removed from the Table of Contents. All I'm doing is trying to make the page easier to read.

Under different circumstances I would archive those discussions, but they took place within the past few weeks. Any alternative suggestions you can offer would be much appreciated. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems we've resolved the Battle of the t's, or should I say T's? So we should be able to Archive a substantial portion of the page - and some we might even Collapse. I'm discussing that now. But any advice by you, JPG-GR, will carry great weight with me. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mole (US)

Hi, I didn't want to steal Mezaco's idea of moving The Mole (US TV series), but I figured since it was incomplete I'd see what I can do to get it done. I noticed that on other shows, such as The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) all the season titles were along the lines of U.S. Season 1, U.S. Season 2, etc, even if they had a special title to them, like Celebrity Apprentice. So what I want to do is to have each of The Mole US seasons follow the same idea. Thus, the current The Mole (US TV series) would be moved to The Mole (U.S. Season 1) and a new The Mole (U.S. TV series) article would be formed. With 5 seasons (3 civilian, 2 celebrity), that would mean the new titles would be The Mole (U.S. Season 1), The Mole (U.S. Season 2) and so on. The Celebrity Mole page (which has seasons 3 and 4) isn't up to the other's standards yet, but I will work on that tonight. Anyway, I noticed that the guidelines for moving multiple pages at once didn't say if I had to put all the articles on the request moves page or just one of them. I hope this made sense (it's finals week for me, so my mind is a bit blanked out right now). Thanks! S. Ellis (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It made sense, but I'm not sure if you actually asked a question or not... JPG-GR (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I knew I was forgetting something. I noticed the requested moves page didn't mention if I had to put each page on the requested moves, or if just one of them needed to go there. So if I did a request, do I just need to put The Mole (US TV series) there or will I have to put Mole 2: The Next Betrayal, Celebrity Mole and The Mole (2008 US TV Series) there as well? S. Ellis (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Every page you are proposing to move must be listed and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks! S. Ellis (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:!

You closed the requested move at Talk:Louis Quinze after five days and three opinions because no consensus was reached. But a requested move "is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." I presented evidence and reasons for my proposal and showed the only evidence presented by the opposition to be indeterminate at best. No other argument was presented by the other parties. In short, your closing of the request and decision not to move were wrong. Srnec (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Listify

Hello Wikipedia master. Hope you are well. Could you tell me where I can find out all about the WP term, .... Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fuck for Forest

On all other wikis I've ever edited, people would simply list an article that is marked for moving, but not listed at the right place. Here you choose to remove the moving template, because things were not done the proper way. Why remove when you can fix? Not interested in Wikipedia being the best encyklopedia possible? --EivindJ (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what an "encyklopedia" is, nor why you come to complain rather than properly follow the WP:RM procedure. JPG-GR (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Move-template

Hallo, stop your edit-war on talk:On the Jewish Question please. --Schwalker (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who is constantly edit warring - there have been three separate move discussions, each ending in no consensus. As I have previously stated, requests don't remain open until your side wins.

Additionally, please be more careful while editing pages - you completely overwrote the bulk of my current talk page. JPG-GR (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my overriding of your talk-page. I believed that I had restored it by a subsequent edit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It can be found at the section #User:JPG-GR. Yours, --Schwalker (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Already been there, already responded. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Request to move article Álex Rodríguez incomplete

I hope that I have now completed the request properly. If I haven't done so, could you please instruct me? Thanks. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. JPG-GR (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert Zarafshon river to Zeravshan River: incomplete/contested move

Thank you for your guidance. I have completed the three things you have requested: 1) There is a "request move" template on top of Talk:Zarafshon river (it was there already when I initiated the request); 2) There is now a discussion section at the bottom of Talk:Zarafshon river; 3) There is now another request for the move at the top of "Other moves" on W:RM. Please tell me if the request is now complete, or if further action is required on my part. Where can I find the argument for contesting the move? --Zlerman (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. JPG-GR (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RM Second Battle of Kharkov

Please postpone this RM as there is opposition based on unfounded calims, and I ma geting expert opinion form outside Wikipedia. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say withdraw RM, just postpone until I can get the expert opinion for the RM. Is that not possible to put it off for a week?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

After five days, a determination is made. Best to just re-propose when ready. JPG-GR (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have posted a query elsewhere because there is a clash of guidelines, and need to get feedback from an expert in the field, all of which will take more then five days. Appreciate your advice, and that you for your hard work moving--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sugarland (band) -> Sugarland (duo)

Was it crazy for me to move this page, or was it an acceptable display of WP:BOLDness? (Also note, I'll have to have the categories moved again.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'm no familiar with any precedent of the "(duo)" disambiguator, but as you said - with no one objecting, it would've gotten moved after the five days anyway. JPG-GR (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regio Esercito and Regio Esercito (World War II)

I think I forgot to add this {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} because both articles had no talk history. I will add now, ok?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Radical Party (France)

Isn't Talk:Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party#Requested move 2 complete? The move was proposed eight days ago and those who expressed their views (three users) are all in favor of the move... --Checco (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for moving the page Poppenbüttel. I've got no cookies or else, so a little thx must be enough Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (ps I wikify the linking pages now :-)

I think I botched it

Hi, I know you are busy, but someone tried to do a move without going through WP:RM, and when I tried to undo it, I think I botched it. Do you mind having a look at the Aleksei (former Russian archpriest)? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia → Renewable energy in Australia

I think the only reason this looked like it was incomplete is that when I added the move template at the top of the talk page I accidentally put in the old name instead of the new name and someone deleted it thinking that it was already moved. Relisting. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

In fact, there WAS a consensus to move that page to Irish Potato Famine. The majority of the votes was in favor of that move and evidence was provided in favor of it being the common name. If you look at the discussion, you will clearly see that the majority favored options 2 and 5. There were three vocal opponents who objected to the move. I don't think a minority opinion should be permitted to dictate what that page is called. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

no move List of military occupations

The RM had an RfC, so can I resubmit depending on how that goes?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the overwhelming opposes, I wouldn't... JPG-GR (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Move consensus

[2] Can you tell me how a 2-2 (discounting SPA votes) discussion is consensus to make a disputed move? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Also, please look at the history, this requested move was done and then undone based on non-consensus a day ago, but the discussion wasn't closed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Looks like I misread some of the discussion. Discussion has been reopened and the request restored to WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you possibly explain to me how there was no consensus on the "Great Hunger" page? It was 15-3 or so. Does consensus require unanimity? Wotapalaver (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? See question above. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus is not a vote. Secondly, while option #5 did have quite a bit of support, there was also support for some of the other options as well. Finally, there is the lesser issue of Irish Potato Famine and The Great Hunger overlapping in edit history, making a history merge somewhat problematic. After some time, you may want to re-propose a move, perhaps offering only one initial option, and may then find a more thorough consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

gee thanks

Thanks for moving the RM tag from Association football in the Republic of Ireland simply because I forgot to list it on the Other proposals list. It was very kind of you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Navbox Airlines of India

Template:Navbox Airlines of India has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Backlog

Thanks for the message. :) Yes, would have continued with more, but reading all those discussions became tiring and I stopped. Won't have so much time in the next month or two, but hopefully I'll be able to help again afterwards. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another way of adding stations to the state lists

I know I've been on the slack side on the -LPs. If I were to add them what should I do or just leave it alone for you since I don't know the new system? I've been adding in stuff from this 1992 Broadcasting Yearbook I have here & there.Stereorock (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to get all the stations included in all the lists by the end of June. The only difficult thing is the format column - I'm yet to find a source that is updated often enough and that can handle lots of info queries at once. JPG-GR (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (26th May)

RE WP:RM at Republic of Ireland. Why did you close this at 4.30pm on a UK Saturday afternoon? And after only 5 and a half days? The RM that moved to Association (on "60% consensus") was 11 days long! I expect a good very reason for this. I can only see bias and clear cheating at the moment. What do you have to say? -Matt Lewis (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:RM - "requests are generally processed after five days." JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact this is a proposal to reverse something that had an 11-day RM, and was controversially passed on a "60% consensus" - for things to be fair this must too have 11 days, and we must equally weigh-up the 'Supports' when it is through. There are a number of 'watchlist opposes' - but who knows where it will stand after 11 days? Curtailing this particular RM will help no-one, believe me! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion could continue for another month in the same fashion and there would still likely be no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to make that judgement? If it reaches 60% or more Support after 11 days a big issue will arise here given what happened before. This one has to be fair, I'm afraid. The other had 11 days and a weekend - so must this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VOTE - i.e. please stop throwing out percentages, as they are no substitute for discussion and are completely irrelevant. Moreover, WP:RM requests are often completed after 5 days. If you wanted to include the weekend (for whatever reason), you probably should've proposed the move either earlier or later. Regardless, it is quite clear there is no consensus on this proposed move, with editors arguing on both sides. Your re-opening of the discussion just because your proposal did not find consensus is inappropriate. JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Why don't you make an effort to follow the RM's you are meddling with? Most of the 'opposers' in the first 11-day RM havent voted yet - they could help swing it the other way. This is one for an admin I'm afraid - and an admin will make sure it's as equal as possible, so there is at least chance of closure. Closing this when you did helped no-one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I follow all RM's. Just because your proposal did not find consensus you want the discussion prolonged. Additionally, anybody who opposed the last move request is not required to contribute to this one. Move discussions do not remain open until the results YOU want are arrived at. And, once again Voting Is Not A Substitution For Discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to accuse me of that at all! An admin would not do it without looking for evidence first. I went to an RM so an impartial admin could deal with this - I expect that to happen. If you read the RM you will see that others are expecting an admin too. Please do not interfere with that expected process. An RM is a actually a request, remember: it is not an essential process but a chosen one - and for a reason. Obviously admins are expected here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your lecturing me on the in's and out's of WP:RM has given me quite the chuckle and I appreciate that. Rest assured that an admin will come along and likely find the same conclusion I did. JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't become an admin by winding people up! Who knows who will come along, but I'm counting on someone with patience and some sense. This proposal isn't going to go away by brushing it under the carpet: it was brought-about partly due to real unfairness (that 60% 11-day consensus) so this must be as fair as possible - and at very least last the same 11 days. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Who in the world said I wanted to be an admin? And, fairness is apparently relative to you as you are the one who opted to re-open the proposal because you didn't get the result you wanted. JPG-GR (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN - WE NEED AN UNBIASED ADMIN HERE. YOU ARE MAKING THIS 10 TIMES WORSE BY CLOSING IT YOURSELF - STOP DOING IT. IF YOU REALLY WANT CLOSURE HERE, LEAVE IT TO AN UNBIASED ADMIN TO DECIDE WHEN IT CLOSES. YOU HAVE REMOVED SUNDAY MORNING NOW - THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. YOU ARE SIMPLY TAINTING THE RESULT. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamburg Street Light Rail Stop

Are the number of tags sufficient now? If not, please tell me what else I need to do. ----DanTD (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All good now. :) JPG-GR (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Media in Kansas City

Please allow for correct information to be displayed on the Kansas and Missouri stations list before you arbitrarily delete information. I worked hard and diligently to place the information on the Kansas City area stations to be listed on the pages. Deleting incorrect information is justified. However deleting correct information is very selfish and unjustified. The lists and columns are there for a reason. For example: KCMO AM-FM are owned by Cumulus and play respective formats of Talk and 60's and 80's Oldies. I went to those pages to verify and those facts were absolutely true, so I added them... twice. Once for dsplay reasons and again when you deleted them, which you should not have done. Like I said, that list and those columns are there for a reason. To give an accurate listing of the stations and a summary of information provided. Arbitrarily deleting correct information serves no one.

Maddawg1967 (4:37 PM CDT 5/31/2008)

I'm reverting again - your additions are breaking the code of the table so it no longer sorts properly and displays a sixth column. If you want this information included, please include it properly. JPG-GR (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Association Football in the RoI

Are you aware that your closure of the rm on this article has been undone? Crispness (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of this is above. This JPG-GR is not a admin - why should decide when to close it? It is outrageous. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

KHOT/KNOT

That was indeed a typo. Good catch. (Thanks!) - Dravecky (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

move request

I had no idea there was more bureaucracy to deal with in a requested page move; thanks for cleaning up after me. --barneca (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

what?

What was the thing about banning me about? I don't even know what the hell is goin on... this "Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others." never happend, and kinda tells me a lot about you. --radiolbx (talk)

Umm.... what are you talking about? JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this vandalism. JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you have never listened to the show have you? That is what he is called on the air from time to time. I used to work with him. He was OK with it, but if you look, I took it off right away just in case...why didn't you see that I took it off myself? --radiolbx —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I have been looking at some of the crap you undo...you're a cock...

Move request at Mother Supreme Council of the World

Hi, You recently removed a move request that I had added to the above article, saying it was misplaced... could you please explain what was wrong? The move request was made in good faith, and I tried to follow the instructions listed at WP:NAME... did I not follow the directions properly or something? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Move request templates belong on the Talk page of the article. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OCR (examination board) move request

Hi. I see that you finished up the vote on Talk:OCR (examination board) and removed it from Wikipedia:Requested moves, saying there was no consensus. I understand the no consensus part (as I was the only person to vote!), but still have a query. Seeing as the page clearly breaks Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) at its current title and my proposed move (to Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations) follows the guidelines, why should it stay at its current title? I don't see why the status quo should outweigh Wikipedia's naming conventions. Could you clarify the situation for me, please? As far as I can see, this is an uncontroversial move (which is why I tried to do it twice) that was contested by another user with no real justification who then couldn't be bothered to vote in the poll on the name! Thank you in advance. - Green Tentacle (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSABBR is a guideline and not a policy and secondly (and more importantly), polling is not a substitute for discussion. In the end, I weighed your argument for expanding the acronym per WP:MOSABBR against User:Islander's argument against per WP:COMMONNAMES and declared no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand (since Islander pointed it out to me) the difference between policy and guidelines, but, as far as I can see, these two guidelines don't recommend different things. The common name of the exam board is indeed 'OCR' - both of the sets of guidelines are in agreement that OCR would therefore be the best place for it except OCR stands for lots of things, so there is no way the article could ever be at OCR. Therefore the WP:MOSABBR recommends the spelled-out name; WP:COMMONNAMES, on the other hand, has no guideline for what to do when the common name is unavailable and does not in any way suggest having the common name with disambiguating parenthesis appended. Basically, I cannot see any guideline suggesting the article should be at OCR (examination board), but I can see a guideline saying that it should be at Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations. (Obviously, I do think that OCR (examination board) is a reasonable redirect.)

I have tried discussing the issue, but after one reply, Islander appears to have lost interest. I started the vote and listed the article on WP:Requested moves to generate discussion, but unfortunately it did not generate any.

Again, thank you in advance for your reply. - Green Tentacle (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Were you wrong?

Hello JPG-GR , you closed a move request here on the 24 May. Since then there has been more requests request made, one in fact on the same day you closed the discussion here, it was later removed by one of the Article Mentor’s appointed after and ArbCom ruling. In addition we have had Straw Polls based on the opinion that you were in fact wrong in you conclusion of no consensus. The same editor then started another Straw Poll, again suggesting that the consensus was to move the article. They have now placed another Move Request on the Article. Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? --Domer48 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any policy that says you can't beat a dead horse, so-to-speak. If the arguments can convince someone to make the move this time, so be it. JPG-GR (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

For pointing out my mistakes. I'm not too familiar with the process, as I've only done it once before. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gercaliu

Thank you for your help who to move a page. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Those two articles, WIDL and WKYO needed some cleanup. Why did you revert the template for AM station data, they are the same thing, just less words. As far as the capitalization issues... why must Michigan be michigan? Can't it be either? I understand cleaning up the infobox but reverting my other edits to cleanup the articles makes no sense. The references section looks better than sources. Sources for what? For the entire article? Again, I'm pretty sure you have a personal vendetta against my edits, and there is no reason for that to be. I am only trying to improve articles.--Milonica (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to cleanup the infobox mess, most of the other stuff was incidental. As for the templates, they are not the standard templates as recommended by WP:WPRS. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not telling you how to do your job, just next time you feel like reverting an edit, make sure you are reverting what is wrong and not everything an editor has put on there. I would honestly like to know what you have against me. First you revert my edits, now you attack pages I have created? Do you have a problem with me? Honestly I feel like I am being attacked for editing and helping with radio station articles. You don't see me reverting things YOU have created. Milonica (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that Mr. JPG-GR does a lot of "clean-up" that seams more like it's done to give JPG something to do...why must you go over EVERYTHING that people do? On the WJZJ page you took off breaks in the page that seperated the info, you even mocked it in the reason you gave for the "fix" then you do the same thing you took off there to the WKHQ page...are you the only person who can edit here or can others do it to?User:radiolbx —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you see why I am upset and frustrated. I put a lot of work into cleaning articles up and fixing infoboxes and templates and all of my work is for nothing since he believes it is not to his liking. I'm actually afraid of creating new radio station articles fearing all of my work will have been for nothing, since it'll be reverted to supposed "standards" that require, say, a uncapitalized m on Michigan. Also reverting the AM station data (or FM) template for the much more wordier and confusing AMQ AML and AMARB templates. I don't see anywhere on WP:WPRS where it says you CAN'T use the station data template. They are exactly the same thing!!! The results are the same... is it the fact that its gives you more words to type the AMQ than the AM station data. I agree radio, its like we can't edit Wikipedia any more. All of our work is some how irrelevant to how this NON admin believes. Milonica (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of something else. JPG-GR, if you want, see if you can nominate this article for deletion. Or how about this one, or this, or this? All of them were ones I created, one is a good article? Try it! Lets see how far you get. Milonica (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack, editors, people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing (and reverting) will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I urge you to stop reverting edits without merit and stop bullying users and acting like an admin especially since you aren't one. Continued reverting of my edits (especially those done in good faith) will result in me alerting an administrator to this subject. I am tired of arguing with you and feel that you have indeed, personally attacked me. --Milonica (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than the ridiculousness of the accusation (as I don't engage in personal attacks), I point you to WP:DTTR. In other words... seriously? JPG-GR (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The very page you directed me to states this

Note, however, that templating at all — to regulars or newcomers — may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template.

Both of us are regulars, but Radio is not. As with me, he noticed that you are pretty ademant about reverting other editors work, even though they may be in good faith. I interpret reverting my edits (to the Michigan articles) for no reason other than its the way you like them to be, a personal attack. I take editing at Wikipedia seriously, and when I spend minutes working on articles only to see them be changed back to where they were before, unimproved, it greatly upsets me. I'm sure if your edits were reverted you'd feel the same way. I don't have anything against you, just please only revert items that need to be reverted, if any. Radio isn't guilty of a personal attack, he just reiterated the problem I had already notified you about, simple as that. I see no personal attacks in there other than putting the template above on his page. To me, it looks like both of us are "evil" editors who can make no improvements to Wikipedia. In your eyes, all of our work is garbage, since we don't know everything about everything. 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milonica (talk • contribs)

move-request-template removal

Thanks for this. Just starting to wade into the world of WP:RM. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. I'm the resident janitor. :) JPG-GR (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean resident bully. :) Radiolbx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PA

I hate to say it but ultimately I had final say in what happened to MILOFM. If you recall, "I" was the one who put the speedy delete tags on it [3], and "I" was the one who said that the nomination was over and the article was to be deleted, which it was. So, the only one I technically called "bully" [4] was myself. You warning me for a personal attack had no merit. Funny isn't it! --Milonica (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad defense, if it wasn't for the fact that it's swiss cheese. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay so its okay for you to tear down my argument, yet I can't defend myself without it being a personal attack. Hmmm. As of right now, I suggest this issue be dropped and both of us go back to civil editing. If you still have a problem with me, discuss it on my talk page. Milonica (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm attacking your argument, not you. That's the difference. And, I've no reason to go to your talk page as I've never had a problem with you - that's been something you created in your own mind for some reason. JPG-GR (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is supposed to have some kind of authority, you seem to be pretty unprofessional Mr. JPG --Radiolbx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images from category

I noticed you removed the WHCJ logo from several categories. If you review the meta wiki article on images you will note that:

"By adding a category tag on the image page, images can be in the same category as other pages, but are treated separately: on the category page they are not included in the count of articles in the category, and they are displayed in a separate section, with for each a thumbnail and the name, see category page.

On Commons there are essentially only images. On projects with real articles a category can either mix articles and images about a subject, or one has separate image categories. An image category is typically a subcategory of the general category about the same subject, and a subcategory of a wider image category."

I have reversed your edits. Please feel free to contact me if you have an overriding wikipedia policy. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No policy - just common sense that a radio station logo is not a radio station and therefore doesn't belong in that category. JPG-GR (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine you win

OK, fine, you have run me out. You win. I just thought I would help out on this site, but with people like you messing with anything anyone else does, I can't take it. You sir are a jerk. --Radiolbx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

no move appeal

Is there a procedure for appealing no move decision?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there Requested moves archives?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions: there is no set procedure and there is no archive. JPG-GR (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WQBR

I'm not sure what I can use as reference for WQBR: the closest thing it has to a web presence are three long-dead websites. Most of this info comes from my personal experience working there in the 80s.

Oh, and it's not nice to threaten people. You might want to re-read the six pages of angry users on your talk page if you're having trouble grasping this. RMc (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are no references to verify the information found in the article, it's likely to be deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are. A simple google search of the station netted a bunch of references, which I have added. The article's information is relevant, sorry to burst your bubble! Milonica (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said there weren't any references - way to read what you want to read. Also, well done with the watching of my talk page. JPG-GR (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I like keeping track of editors who like to bite new editors. Interesting how so many people bring up your threats against them. Milonica (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the majority of your edits over the last week have been related to me. And, your definition of "new" editors seems a little off, seeing as how this editor has been on Wikipedia OVER A YEAR longer than I. But, why not make unfounded personal attacks against me? It appears to be the only way you contribute anymore. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that other editors have pointed out that you have threatened them. Also thanks for assuming that all of my edits are against you. Milonica (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Second thing first - not an assumption but a clear picture painted by your recent contribs. First thing second - I don't "threaten" other editors.

More and more, you're reminding me of a certain banned user. In the end, the cream rises to the top. JPG-GR (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Łukta (village)

Hi, you closed the move discussion here as no consensus - I think if you take a look again you'll see there was consensus to move - the reason that there was no input over two weeks was that all the opposing arguments had been dealt with, presumably to everyone's satisfaction. Please could you reconsider. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Intensive insulinotherapy

I'm not a move expert but what did you mean by 'incomplete rationale'? It's simply a confusing term. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale wasn't very convincing. It comes across as a little WP:ILIKEIT. If you opt to re-propose the move, please include a further explanation, and preferably some sources/references to back up your position. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)