User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 7

Your message re:move of Historical Vedic religion

You have placed the template on my talk page, however all elements of the template were already complete ie I have follow the 3 step process you have described. Why do you need to add this template again to the page? Wikidās ॐ 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no area for discussion set up on the page that is linked to for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I have set up such discussion at the pate that is linked to. All 3 items on the list are complete. Wikidās ॐ 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move request

You have my consent to delete the request; I've posted it incorrectly, my apologies. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin division of Poland post-partitions

Haven't done a move request before, but I read through Wikipedia:Requested move and it appeared to indicate that where there was contention the move template be placed in talk and the title discussed. Unless I missed it, it was not indicated to post elsewhere--which was, however, indicated for non-controversial moves. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it as I need to restore the template to properly continue the discussion. I realized you keep busy, but a note would have been preferred to simply deleting. Thanks. —PētersV (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

General rule of thumb - if you're going to use {{move}} or similar on the talk page, you're gonna want to go through the entire procedure and list the proposal in a dated section on WP:RM. If the proposal is uncontroversial, don't even bother with {{move}}. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

move

You undid a move of talk page contents from my page to the page it concerned. The move seems reasonable to me and I've redone it. If you have some objection to the move, or any other input, I'd be glad to hear it. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an odd move from an outsider's perspective and a large blanking of a user's talk page by another user is usually vandalism. Apparently I was mistaken. JPG-GR (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understood why it might arouse suspicion, but wanted to check in to see if there was something I'd missed. Thanks. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Abingdon, Oxfordshire

I am curious why you closed the move at Abingdon citing "primary usage not established". All supporters of the move make the primary usage clearly established and a majority support the move citing other reason. Why hasn't the page been moved? 71.106.182.162 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you have to re-request a proposal for a move? On my talk page for moving Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, you said that I have to complete all three of the steps. The third one says "Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.", but it's already in the incomplete and contested proposals section. I already completed the first tow, so do I have to re-request the proposal? — Enter Movie (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you can just move it to the dated section - or someone else will at some point. JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MFKR

I noticed you jsut moved the MFKR article from Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat to Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. but my request was to move it to Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. because the title of the album is seperated with space. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore your request, but note that you have not provided any support for that move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean I'm not providing support? I made the request and I haven't had any response. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You've mentioned the need for the final period and the fact that the page was moved from that location. Nowhere have you mentioned that there is any need for the spaces, hence the move I made - wasn't aware you wanted spaces included, and not sure if it's proper either. JPG-GR (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you see WP:RM the requested pafge to be moved did include the spaces, I'm sorry I didn't explain this on the talk page. Also on the talk page you will see me link to a scan of the back of the cover art which clearly shows the title as "Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat." with spaces, that is why I believe it should be moved there... because that's the name. Can you not now move it to that location? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between reverting an undiscussed move and moving to a new location. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a contested issue here (if that wasn't clear). The last time the article was at Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. was in 2006 and I am one of the most frequent editors on the Slipknot Project, I am merely trying to move it to the correct title so what is the problem? REZTER ^TALK ø 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't completed the five day discussion period yet. JPG-GR (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It has finished the five day discussion can you now move it? If you have any other worries please let me know so I can help. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request to move article Boston Brahmin accent incomplete

Thanks for the note. I probably made the move request wrong (either by putting where non-contested moves go or some other error). It's been a long time since I've done a move request and my memory of the protocol is incomplete. I hope to find time to figure out the the proper procedure over the next few days. Best wishes - House of Scandal (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

Sorry I do not really undersatand what is going on with Derek Farn, see Talk:Locality_of_reference. I simply do not understand, why his account and access is not disabled.

Examining the history of the page Locality_of_reference in question, I observed, that during the last 2 months there was no substantial edition, only two minor changes, minor in terms of number of characters (8514-8492=22).

Reading the article I found a few inaccuracy in the logical causality structure of the reasoning.

I also missed the fact, that the locality is a phenomenon fails to occur in important cases, namely in computational search for proof and similar topics.

Actually this latter defect lightened me, that the reasoning structure should be cleaned up.

So my impression was, that this page was given up, and left as is.

As I indicated on the discussion page BEFORE touching the article page, I planned to make CONSERVATIVE REWRITING, namely no to vanish any valuable existing information. Partially this is the reason, that whenever I save the page, it is still inconsistent and full of repetitions. Repetition means, that I already gathered the similar sentences to the same section, but I did not apply the UNIQ command (removing the duplicate lines from line oriented ascii files) for the content of that sentences.

In spite of my major rewriting work, I think I am not a vandal.

At least, I use computers since 1972, hence I have a weak idea of the fundamental concepts of computer science, even if it is not the topic of my academic degrees.

That is an other issue, that I welcome the polishing of my formulation, since I am not a native English speaker. I also welcome any critics and alteration of the new structure. Etc.

Best wishes: prohlep (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WZNZ

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) incomplete

I don't quite understand the message. I don't see any other votes besides mine. Did somebody decline it?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not properly propose the request. JPG-GR (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I thoguht i did them right. or I have to do it exact same as other people do?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't completed any of the steps at all. Please read the note left on your talkpage and the process as outlined at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Dhamma Vicaya incomplete

Admittedly, I did step 3 and then steps 1 & 2. Took a few minutes. Is it complete now? If so, please let me know. If not, please let me know why. Thanks. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no link to the area for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean on the project page, I just added one. (I simply copied the format of the entry just prior to mine -- obviously a mistake as I see you've tagged that one too ;-) ) Okay now? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've moved it to the section for today. JPG-GR (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

KMEZ and KXOS and KKND

•  Done the article pages; but what needs to be done with their talk pages? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I did what you said, but it left page KXOS describing radio station KMEZ. But you said that KMEZ is not currently a licensed station. What is the situation? The last edit of page KXOS (except histmerge stuff) is "22:17, 6 July 2008 JPG-GR m (3,582 bytes) (fix sort key)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The talkpages are likely a lost cause, but with all the stations shifting around, any previous discussion likely doesn't apply anymore anyway. Plus, it looks like I must've mixed some stuff up myself as KMEZ is the current station, with KXOS now gone. I've tagged KMEZ (the redirect page) to be speedied to make room for KXOS (about KMEZ). Sheesh... triple call swipes are a pain in general, but cut/pastes don't help. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

radio logo categorization

I notice you are removing radio station logos from the Radio stations in state categories. What are your thoughts there?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated my position at WT:WPRS. Categorizing station logos by state is a ridiculous sorting method. JPG-GR (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1, 2 Step

You do realize why I put it under "other proposals",right? That section is for controversial proposals,so why did you tell me that it was controversial when I already knew that? Big T.V. Fan (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it was incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How? I don't get it. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Voices of the Heart

Sorry, didn't realize you were halfway through taking care of it before I finished the move.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. JPG-GR (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving WP:Author-date referencing

When I put up "author-date referencing" at requested moves, I added that hopefully this would suffice for WP:Author-date referencing. (Originally, I added both, but you deleted one of them.) These pages essentially complement each other. If you're going to oppose this, then perhaps as a good faith gesture you could put WP:Author-date referencing through the RM process, since you're an hold hand at it? I honestly didn't see the point in putting up both, and figured since you didn't comment, you thought it was fine as well. II | (t - c) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice that - must've gotten hit during a routine cleaning of CAT:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the WP article. Thanks for your help on merging the first one. Sorry if I came off a little whiny. II | (t - c) 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Hi JPG-GR. Neutralhomer has made an apology to you and a request to be unblocked at User talk:Neutralhomer. There is also a related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You were the subject of many of Homer's problematic edits (and the subject of the apology), so I am notifying you of the developments. I am also curious as to your views on whether you think Homer could be productive and how you would feel about having the ban lifted.--Kubigula (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brand Nubian

Hi. I've made the move, as you suggested. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move Rail transport in the People's Republic of China to Rail transport in China?

I proposed it to be moved to Rail transport in mainland China, and got three out of four supporters. Please follow consensus. Python eggs (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But, the oppose made a very good point. I was going to close as no consensus, but the new option, which no one objected to, seemed the most logical choice. JPG-GR (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As it appears you are not happy with the move, I have now closed as no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your authority in the Wikipedia framework or former experience with closing discussions? Your closure of a discussion based on input from the minority does not appear to be well thought-out. The current title which includes the term "People's Republic of China" has POV issue of its own. --Voidvector (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And, who exactly are you? I find it odd that you'd be interested in the result of a discussion you didn't even weigh in on. Discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote - what you call "the minority" is irrelevant. I believed that the suggested title of Rail transport in China was the most neutral option presented and had not been opposed by anyone - perhaps my interpretation of the neutrality of that title was in error. Regardless, consensus was not formed to support the move to the new title, so the request defaults to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was formed with a 3-to-1 vote, you overwrote the consensus by closing the discussion and declaring it "no consensus". --Voidvector (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not "vote" on Wikipedia - we discuss. One user raised a question of a POV problem with the new name and no one offered a counter-argument. I stand by my view of "no consensus" as the outcome... and am still interested to know what your interest is in the matter as you did not participate in the discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kendall Cross

I moved the stuff around so the history is intact and converted Kendall Cross to a disambiguation. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson M&P

You recently deleted the above article & did some kind of poorly executed move to the Smith & Wesson Model 10. THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT GUNS & share the M&P name only. Smith & Wesson named their new gun the M&P in an homage to the Model 10. Where was the discussion on the move?? Where was the notice?? I can't thing that anyone who had been editing this article would agree with this move. Where can we discuss this?--Lepeu1999 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete any article. Secondly, the move was requested at WP:RM and had been unopposed for over a week. Third, I'm not entirely sure which article you are referring to, but they are both still present (Smith & Wesson M&P & Smith & Wesson Model 10). JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

THe move request may have been active at WP:RM but there was no notice or discussion on the article talk page--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of radio stations in New York

Would you mind enlightening me as to why the recent WPUT edits to List of radio stations in New York was reverted. The edited info came from the WPUT article and is properly sourced. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have put the info in the wrong columns. Due to the ridiculous amount of false info put into these lists, I tend to revert as soon as I see something wrong/out of place. Feel free to re-add in the right order. JPG-GR (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding RM

A procedural question. If someone doesn't like the name of the article, and starts a straw poll to gain consensus on renaming the article, can this renaming be executed immediately upon securing this poll consensus to rename without Request for Move, if the renaming is controversial, and the discussion on supporting sources for the renaming never took place?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, WP:RM is only there for (a) moves which an editor feels it is best to obtain consensus to execute first and (b) moves that cannot be executed for whatever reason (usually due to an article already existing at the destination). If a move is controversial and one KNOWS it is controversial, the only proper thing to do is to list it at WP:RM to get some neutral, outside perspective. JPG-GR (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have requested a move for the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria. It may have been my fault originally because I had moved it to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation based on the references and the provision of proof that the previous title Operation August Storm was fictitious though widely used. However this was changed again based on consensus to move, but not the actual RM to do so because the most recent renaming is controversial, primarily executed under the common name convention although this was not illustrated--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect much though - consenus is consensus. About the only thing you can hope for is an outside set of eyes finding that the new title violates some naming convention. JPG-GR (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A poll is simply a consensus to rename, but there was no consensus on the actual renaming--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't come around asking me for advice again if you're gonna "lecture" me on policy. JPG-GR (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Towns in Malta

Hi JPG-GR, I was wondering if you could do me a favour with your admin tools. A new user (four days) has got slightly the wrong end of the stick regarding our naming conventions for towns, and moved a few towns in Malta to English exonyms which are now archaic and unused. Moving Żurrieq to Zurrico is an anachronism like having Regensburg at Ratisbon, or Istanbul at Constantinople. There's a thread here on the background if you're interested where I've been trying to explain to the editor what UE's all about.

I've read a lot about Malta and am sure these variants are no longer popular or current, so I've moved some back to the previous titles pending discussion and evidence to the contrary - however the following require admin assistance:

• Mellieħa
• Kalkara
• Luqa
• Qormi

If you could lend a hand with repairing those (and perhaps explaining further to this user how RM and UE work..) I would be incredibly grateful. Many thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools? I'd love to help, but I'm just the resident WP:RM janitor (never really applied for the job... doesn't pay that well... but, it's a "living"... ;-) ). Good luck. JPG-GR (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, classic case of "I thought you were one already!". If you do ever apply I'll have to put the cliché in my response now, damnit! Anyway, it's a compliment (I think). As for the articles, someone's already sorted them out I've just noticed, but you can still have a go at engaging the guy in question if you fancy something different from an RM! All's well now anyway, best, Knepflerle (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had my share of both real world administrative duties as well as online forum administrative duties. While the responsibility is not not desired, it's also not something I care to sink too much time into (i.e. obsessively) nor do I have the desire for everyone (and perhaps even their mother) going through my contribs looking for a way to hang me. The compliment, though, is appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Requested Move without taking action

You deleted a backlogged set of requested moves without taking any actions. THe moves were supposed to be reverted back to the original spelling.

• Template:Administrative division of Congress Poland ‎
• Administrative division of Congress Poland
• Congress Poland
• Sandomierz Governorate → Sandomir Governorate
• Podlasie Governorate → Podlyase Governorate
• Chełm Governorate → Kholm Governorate
• Suwałki Governorate → Suvalki Governorate
• Kielce Governorate → Keltse Governorate
• Siedlce Governorate → Sedlets Governorate
• Piotrków Governorate → Petrokov Governorate
• Łomża Governorate → Lomzha Governorate
• Płock Governorate → Plotsk Governorate
• Kraków Governorate → Krakov Governorate
• Kalisz Governorate → Kalish Governorate
• Augustów Governorate → Avgustov Governorate

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... it appears I misinterpreted the request because you've got the format backwards - the current article should be listed first with the arrow pointing to the new article. I was under the impression that they had all already been moved. I suggest if you still want these moved, you re-propose using the proper formatting (and the applicable templates wouldn't hurt) because if I misinterpreted them, it's likely others did, too. JPG-GR (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting past personalities

What is up with you deleting the past personalities part of the page. IT IS NOT A DIRECTORY! There are no times. it simply states when they worked at the station and possibly what shift they worked. it is the biggest part of history at radio stations. please just keep them. it is ridiculous that you are deleting good content and history from these pages and you got to admit it is a pretty cool addition to the page. again PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THEM! Joemama993 (Talk) (1:22) 3, August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If the personalities are not notable enough to warrant their own article nor a section in the station's history section in prose, they have NO business being on Wikipedia. We are not the personal history site of each and every radio station. JPG-GR (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO

You should be informed that ABN AMRO always used all-capital letters. I should know as I was a customer of an ABN AMRO bank before it was sold to Bank of America. Please revert your edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Stelbeard1 has also brought this to AN at Wikipedia:AN#ABN_AMRO_or_ABN_Amro.3F. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Calabar Python move proposal

Hi JPG-GR, Although I can understand why there was no consensus for getting Rubber Boa and Anaconda‎ moved to their scientific names, why not Calabar Python? It looked to me like the consensus there was 3-2 in favor, or perhaps even 3-1.5 in favor. Not that I expect my comments to change anything; I'd just like to know how the final conclusion came about. Thanks, --Jwinius (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a very distinct difference between a vote (which we don't do here) and consensus. There wasn't a consensus to support the move, nor was any policy invoked to justify said proposal. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for your answer. --Jwinius (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WVBR-FM

The program schedule on WVBR-FM has been removed and readded several times. The editor who is insisting this information be in the article points to the provision in WP:NOT#DIR that state mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable as their reason. I'm having trouble equating the current weekend local program schedule a college radio station with the the annual network television schedule. I've left the section alone for now but would your input into the discussion on the Talk:WVBR-FM page.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scone

I removed your deletion request for Scone, Perth and Kinross. I did so because of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Scotland. Scone, Scotland should be free as a move location now though. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I learn a new naming convention everyday. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WBCT

Hi, JPG-GR! I'm curious about your request to move WBCT-FM over WBCT (FM) - can you help me out? From everything I see, the station's actual signal-id is WBCT-FM, so I don't understand why it needs to be moved. I'll watch this page. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what you're seeing, but the callsign is WBCT ([1]). Proper disambiguation puts the article correctly at WBCT (FM). JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything's all set now. :) JPG-GR (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your info is probably more accurate... Being a web developer, I looked at [2], where every instance of the call sign comes up "WBCT-FM". But that's hardly precise or WP:V :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with radio station callsigns. You could probably find Google results on a hundred AM radio stations in the US with the "-AM" suffix... but not a single one has that suffix. JPG-GR (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

/me shakes head. Yes, but on their official website!?? That's just wrong :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if your name was "Dick" you might want to be "Richard" instead... or something. hehe JPG-GR (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Sorry if I've been causing problems - exact opposite of what I was trying to achieve, naturally. Before I started disambiguating, I looked for naming conventions under WikiProject Radio, but couldn't find any - it looked disturbingly random, so I'd been trying to stick with XXXX for the AM stations and XXXX-FM for the FM stations. I've taken another look and now I've found them (under WikiProject Radio Stations, natch), so I'll make sure to read them over carefully and keep them handy before I cause any more havoc.

Thanks for the heads-up and, again, sorry if I've buggered anything up. I'll try to clean up after myself in due course. Mlaffs (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed your recent post to the admin noticeboard. I think you'd be a good admin yourself. You've made over 39k edits, been around 2 years, very active, civil, knowledgeable etc. I looked in your archive and saw someone asked you fairly recently, and saw your reply, and I'd have to disagree with you. Admins aren't bound to do lots of work, and aren't required to be committed - in short, they are volunteers like the rest of us! I think you'd be a great addition with respect to WP:RM, which not many admins attend to, and as you point out, gets backlogged. So, what do you think? Let me know. how do you turn this on 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda view Wikipedia adminship as a political office - if I were to win as a write-in, I would "serve", but am not prepared to run at this time. As RFA's don't run without the candidates acceptance of the nomination first and foremost, the point is moot. While the thought is appreciated, I'm content doing what I do at this point. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hello JPG-Gr,
You concluded the move request on Siege of Jerusalem (1948) to Battle of Jerusalem (1948) by no consensus to move.
I have to disagree. It is not a pool. It is something that is discussed with arguments and facts.
Could you please check and read the discussion once more ?
If such requests are not considered on the "discussion" side but only by a vote with people who do not even answer, it is complete no-sense...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Baron

What was incomplete about the move proposal? Kelly ^hi! 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no link pointing to an area for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

? There is an area for discussion at the bottom of the article's talk page, as well as the template on the top. Kelly ^hi! 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is no link pointing to that area. One cannot expect people to easily hunt down an area to discuss if a link pointing there is not provided. That's why it's recommended to use the templates and not copy/paste entries. JPG-GR (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of quite silly bureacracy for a completely uncontroversial move, but whatever. Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was uncontroversial, it wouldn't have ended up in the dated section in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of WNWS

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Excuse me, but the consensus you made on Untitled Korn album was incorrect. You said there wasn't a consensus to move the page, but the page was moved a couple of days ago. Can you explain to me what you meant by your conclusion? --The Guy _complain ^edits 06:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the close note - no consensus to move to the proposed title (i.e. Korn's eighth studio album). JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I still disagree with where it was moved, but at least it wasn't moved to Korn's eighth studio album. Thanks again for clarification. --The Guy _complain ^edits 06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Move close on Mu Arae c

You said in your move close edit summary that no evidence was provided to support the proposal, however the proposal itself on the article's talk page contained such evidence including links to various literature which support the proposed move. While there may be other reasons not to go ahead with the move, lack of evidence is surely not one of them. 86.170.167.37 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked the linked sources and couldn't find a single instance of any of the proposed titles. JPG-GR (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did link to the paper references on ADS so you could either get the paper from the journal itself (which is often subject to paywalls), or the arXiv. You are aware of standard astronomical abbreviations (e.g. Arae is abbreviated Ara)... the first paper I linked includes the designations in the abstract of the paper itself, written as "μ Arae c", "μ Arae d", "μ Arae e". Since the convention on Wikipedia is to write the Greek letters in Bayer designations out in their English spelling, converting these to "Mu Arae c", etc. seems reasonable. The third paper just refers to the planets as "c", "d", "e". Since the way that planet names get written is <star name><planet designation>, and the star in question is Mu Arae (=HD 160691), I think the case there is fairly obvious... 86.170.167.37 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Will execute the moves within 24 hours (hopefully). JPG-GR (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I think I've managed to fix the links in other articles so they will point to the right place once the move is completed. 86.170.167.37 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moves completed. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Trouble moving KZER (AM) to KZER

I know you're involved with Requested Moves quite a bit and since this issue has sat unattended for a while I thought you might be able to help. I've been working, as you know, to clean up a bunch of unneeded disambiguation pages and them getting the radio station articles moved to the proper name. All was going well until this morning after the old KZER was deleted so the updated KZER (AM) could be moved to that name. For some reason, the system tells me that the article can't be moved "because the title "KZER" is protected from being created." There's nothing I can see blocking the move but maybe with your experience you can fix it or at least tell me what's going on. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This problem has been showing up sporadically lately - not sure what's going on. I've tagged it with {{db-move}} which, if the right admin is cleaning speedies, will tell them to move the article as they delete the redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That'll be the second time it's been speedied today. - Dravecky (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Hello, I'm quite familiar with talk page archiving, and this is a little off-topic, but I noticed that you have all your user talk pages archived. I believe its about time for mine to be archived, and I would like to, but I don't know how to archive a user talk. I know you only usually contribute moves, but you're the only person I noticed that has the archives listed on their talk pages. Could you help me out? Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 04:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just create a page at User talk:Dude527/Archive 1 and cut/paste your talk page contents from User talk:Dude527 to there. You can then use {{archive box}} to make the links to the pages. Let me know if you want any help. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but one more thing. How do I make it list the archives on my talk page? I added the template after archiving the page, and it didn't show any list. --The Guy _complain ^edits 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out. JPG-GR (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks a lot for your help! --The Guy _complain ^edits 05:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Molecular phylogeny

I don't know how the the proposed move of Molecular phylogeny has been contested - I've just checked Talk:Molecular phylogeny#Requested move and there's no expression of dissent. -- Philcha (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere that it has been contested. All non-uncontroversial moves go through the five day process. JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Direct Connect (file sharing)#Requested move

I don't understand your decision to close this discussion and refuse the move on the basis that there was "no consensus to support move." My impression is that if something gets listed as a potentially controversial move, but there are no objections, the move should happen. There was only one explicit objection, and I believe my response clarified that the reasoning for the objection was meritless and failed to understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. There was a second comment made that could be looked at as an objection, but that person didn't really say they were objecting; they were pointing out an apparent discrepancy with my argument (due to minor changes to the dab page at Direct connect that had been made after I posted said argument). The comment, and the changes it referred to, don't have anything to do with my contention that this is the primary meaning of the phrase "Direct Connect." Propaniac (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So I guess you're ignoring my request for clarification? Propaniac (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to support your move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If I wasn't restricted by technical limitations in this case, I wouldn't need consensus in favor of a move. There were no valid objections to the move, either. And your dismissive attitude towards people trying to figure out how the hell you made your decisions is really unbecoming of an admin. Propaniac (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a proposal and no one agrees with the proposal, what outcome would you expect? JPG-GR (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The key point is not that nobody agreed with my proposal, it's that nobody disagreed (except for one objection based on nonsense, if you read my response). If it weren't for technical limitations due to the existing but valueless edit history at Direct Connect, I would have been able to make the move myself. I would have felt perfectly justified doing so under the WP:BOLD guideline, which clearly indicates that if a user feels that a change will improve Wikipedia, he should feel free to make the change and if another user disagrees, a discussion should commence. It does not say that the user should make the change, and then wait for several people to note that the change was a good idea, and if he doesn't receive those affirmations he should change it back. The implication is that a change that one person likes and nobody dislikes is probably a good change.

Therefore, if someone makes a proposal that no one agrees with, but there is also no [informed] disagreement, I would expect the person reviewing the proposal to conclude that it is uncontroversial and accept it. Instead, you're penalizing me as the proposal's originator for thinking that someone might disagree and listing it as a potentially controversial move. I hope you're spending a lot of your time going through all the article Talk pages where people suggested a change and, when nobody responded because nobody cared either way, took that to mean the change was acceptable. All those edits obviously need reverting. Propaniac (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Requested move page

I don't understand. What do I need to do to make my request "complete." thank you. Elan26 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The long story short is that you have not included a link in your proposal pointing to the area of discussion. The templates outlined at WP:RM can assist you with this. JPG-GR (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "the area of discussion"?Elan26 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

An area to discuss whether or not your proposal has community consensus or not. JPG-GR (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning incomplete move

I just took care of the missing steps and have moved my request back into the lineup. If you have a minute, could you move it? We already reached consent on the talk page under the Change map section. Thanks!Yarilo2 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another incomplete move

EuroBasket 2005 Women to EuroBasket Women 2005 (redirect page). Reason given on talk page. If you have any further comment, please do it there.--Nitsansh (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you should utilize the proper templates to ensure all steps are properly completed, including a link to the area for discussion. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete requested move?

Hi, I requested Shuttle: the Space Flight Simulator (Virgin game) to be moved on WP:RM but you marked it as incomplete. I had completed all 3 of the steps on the requested moves page, did I miss something? Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order now. JPG-GR (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick Hancock

I've moved the article as requested - any problems let me know. I'm not sure what (if anything) you want to do with Nick Hancock (disambiguation) - I agree it doesn't serve much purpose. Unless you feel that Nick Hancock (writer) may one day be created, I'd suggest putting a {{PROD}} on it. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters WN-WZ)

Why did you nominate only this list and not all of them? Wouldn't that make more sense? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Testing the waters. JPG-GR (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

heat shock protein move

The heat shock protein move request has been deleted from the requests page but not moved to the controversial or incomplete section. ----Seans Potato Business 21:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of elements

Hey, I was just wondering what happened with those... :( Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A whole lot of no interest by anyone else to join the discussion is a sign that I should spend my rare free time working on other avenues. JPG-GR (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Move template removal

Hey there, just recently you deleted a template I added to Talk:Minor characters in 24. I put that there to get feedback on this proposal at the talk page. Instead of simply deleting it, can you assist with restoring it and doing whatever needs to be done at WP:RM? Blue Danube (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just follow the steps outlined at WP:RM and you can't go wrong. JPG-GR (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I noticed that you removed the template from Talk:Something Borrowed. I didn't list that at WP:RM because I didn't foresee it being controversial; should I list it there anyway? I thought that if a move was uncontroversial that it wasn't necessary to list it at WP:RM. I was planning on giving the local editors a week or so from the notification, and then performing the move if there wasn't any opposition. Is that OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If one is going to utilize the many {{move}}-related templates, the move should be listed at WP:RM - if one doesn't intend to list it there, there's really no reason to put the template(s) on the talkpage in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just thought that the template would help highlight the move request to the people who had that page on their watchlist. I didn't realize that the template had to accompany a listing at WP:RM. No biggie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, if people have a page watchlisted, they'll either check it or not - the template doesn't make much difference. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

rearviewmirror move request

I wish you wouldn't have removed my move request for rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991–2003. The reason the proposed move name was the same was because the move was proposing to change an ablum from all lowercase to title case (technical restrictions show rearviewmirror as Rearviewmirror). I want you to understand before I propose the move again. Thanks, Xnux the Echidna 12:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not proposing a move. What you are proposing is not within the realm of WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jackplug

You removed the rename request for Image:Jackplug.jpg and said it can't be moved, but on the image page there is this text:

"The Wikimedia Commons has another file with the same name as this file. To include the Commons media file in Wikipedia, this locally stored file needs to be renamed."

So it needs to be renamed but can't be renamed ? /Cygnus78 (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The file needs to be renamed. It can't be moved. JPG-GR (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not make sense, I used the Template:Rename not the move one. And that template information page even uses images as example. /Cygnus78 (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I think I see the problem, that template information I looked at was at commons, not at en and at en the rename template redirected to the move template. Quite confusing. /Cygnus78 (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:JustinPierre_Ivar_MKoTNN.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JustinPierre_Ivar_MKoTNN.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed notifications/requests

If you notice an incorrectly placed template, nomination, request or notification, please fix it and don't just simply remove it - that isn't helpful. Thank you. --Setanta747 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitron Template

Since there is no one to ask for me, I gotta ask myself. Why are you removing the Arbitron templates? Is this that preemptive action we were talking about on WT:WPRS? Just wondering. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on everything I've read so far on the TV situation and the possible future radio situation, it seemed like the logical thing to do. If Nielsen isn't happy with Wikipedia using their defined (and copyrighted) areas, it follows that referring to an area as a Arbitron-defined area would be equally copyright upsetting. The only reason I took a break is because I got a finger cramp.

Welcome back. JPG-GR (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thank You :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% onboard with the removal of the Arbitron templates by why leave many of these templates uncategorized? I had been hoping to rename all of the "(state) Arbitron market template" cats to "(state) radio market templates" since it can be easily argued that there are natural business markets for radio stations and having the non-Arbitron market templates in those cats would help fend off any claim that WP was infringing on their IP. It can still be done now but it will be a bit more complicated as each one will have to be examined by hand to determine the proper state categorization. - Dravecky (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the templates were categorized into categories with "Arbitron" in the name that weren't in fact Arbitron markets. If we're worried Arbitron's gonna complain that we're calling markets they define markets as they define, how do you think they'd feel if we're defining markets and calling them "Aribtron markets"? JPG-GR (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus and requested moves

At Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators, it says that unlike AFD, there's a presumption in favor of moving. Doesn't this mean that if there's "no consensus", then it should be moved? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. That means that if no one voices an opinion at all, the default is to move (assuming the move makes sense, WP:MOS is satisfied, etc.) "No Consensus" means that people did voice their opinions and the community did not reach a consensus, which defaults to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WARL

I undid the undoes. As far as I know, when there's more than 1 thing with the same abbreviation, unless it's really popular, it goes to a disambiguation page. Therefore, only WARL (AM) should be the page for the radio station whereas the WARL page should give the person looking WARL up the choice of either the radio station or the rugby league. That's what I've seen elsewhere. I'm trying to keep things consistent.Stereorock (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that the general practice is to place the article with a primary identification at the proper name with a hat note linking to the secondary identification and an acronym for a sports league's full name is such a secondary identification. Indeed, I just finished moving hundreds of radio station articles and eliminating a similar number of unneeded dab pages and errant redirects. In any case, the cut-and-paste moves you committed are strongly in violation of policy. There are procedures to move articles that preserve editing history and they must be followed. - Dravecky (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)