User talk:Jenks24/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Bugzy

Hi, can you please review the Bugzy Malone edits I made about the 2nd of May as it was undone to the previously inaccurate page.

Thanks, P.S I mightn't reply quickly on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.239.94 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which edits specifically you think shouldn't have been reverted? It looks to me like all the reversions that day were correct. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

28th April actually, +193 MB

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.239.94 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure whether or not the changes you made were all beneficial. I'll ping Primefac, who I think has a lot more knowledge than me about this topic, to have a second look over them just in case (these are the two edits the IP made on that date). Jenks24 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There were too many unreferenced statements, odd changes, and other things. I meant to go back later and re-add the accurate/better content, but never got around to it. I'll try to do so later on. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Request

I know you'd previously said you'd help revert controversial requests done by Mr Appleyard and then forced into an RM by him. Perhaps you might take a look at Operation Lava Jato? It was moved to that title as a "technical request" by Mr Appleyard, but that change was indeed controversial. When an editor requested that the bold change be reverted, Mr Appleyard created an RM against the status quo, which doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to not be of much use, but I'm going to leave it as is for the moment, irritating as that is. If it had been caught before the full RM began and people started giving good faith opinions there then I would just have reverted to the previous consensus title, but as it is it's better to just let the RM play out (and reverting the move while not closing the discussion just makes things confusing for everyone, sorry). I'll leave a note at the RM that if it ends no consensus it should be moved back to the previous title. If the closer doesn't follow that, feel free to follow up with me. Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I appreciate your assistance, regardless. These types of moves are very annoying to me, and I'm not sure why the otherwise scrupulous Mr Appleyard keeps doing this... RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Anarchyte's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds of Mass Production

Hi can you undelete the Sounds of Mass Production page? Please let me know what I can do to make it more relevant. Thanks- Brubaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brubaker23 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brubaker23, sorry it took me a couple of days to get to this. I have undeleted the article and you should now be able to see it at Sounds of Mass Production, please feel free to make any improvements. In particular, it would be great if you could add some examples of coverage the band has received from independent reliable sources. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Jenks24, I hope you are doing well, I am Sammy.Joseph. I still remember that once I was editing this Article Diyar-e-Dil started a discussion that Its title should be changed. I still remember that that day you finally came out of no where and helped me which actually meant a lot to me! Well now there is an article (a stand alone article) which I want to merge with Its parent article due as It met those conditions which are never meant for Stand alone articles. I started a discussion few weeks ago and apparently no one was there to notice its MERGING TAG can you please help me once again? This is where I started the discussion, Talk:List of Mann Mayal episodes#Merge. Really looking forward to your response please help me once again. Thank you. Sammy.joseph (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sammy. I see that since you've left this message another editor has now weighed in on the talk page agreeing with your proposal. Since you've asked a couple of people to give their opinion I'd suggest waiting for a few days and seeing if anyone disagrees with your proposal in that time. If they don't, then you should feel comfortable there is a consensus for the merger and go ahead with it. As Cyphoidbomb notes on the talk page, if you do make the merge you need to make sure you follow the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Let me know if you need any help with it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Rust

Hi Jenks24,

Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia. I myself am brand new to it (newbie). I noticed that the "Christopher Rust" page was deleted. Since I am new, can you tell me what it would take to make the page acceptable? I didn't write the page, but am interested in the person. If there is information that can make his page acceptable, I'd love to help contribute.

Please let me know ... thx.

Glenngow (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Glenngow. You are probably aware, seeing as you came to ask me about it, that Christopher Rust was deleted as a result of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rust. You could ask for my decision there to be reviewed, but I think you would agree it was pretty clear there was an agreement to delete.

So the other way get the article recreated is to go via Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose and prove that significant new information has come to light since the deletion decision (point #3) and ask for recreation to be allowed. By "new information" what is generally meant is independent reliable sources and they don't have to be "new" in the sense of published since the deletion discussion ended, simply that they weren't considered last time around.

Generally the best way to go about this is to start a draft article that you can work on at your leisure (there is no deadline to when you can go to deletion review, you can take a week or a year). Working on a draft is a good way to practice with things like Wikipedia formatting and layouts which is useful to know, but the main thing you should focus on is the sources – that's what will count when people are reviewing it for recreation. Wikipedia's general rule of thumb for notability is the general notability guideline – significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I realise this is a bit of an information dump and Wikipedia can have a steep learning curve, so please feel free to ask any follow-up questions. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

History merges

• Thanks for helping me with the history merges; but also please log them in Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Completed requests June 2016. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary? Most people don't log their histmerges there, as you can see by having at look at the histmerge log. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That was a bit blunt, sorry. I do appreciate the work you do with histmerges. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

People Vs Turner

Hi Jenks24,

I'm fairly late but have a different opinion on the requested move for article on Brock Turner. Here are few of my doubts. Would appreciate your feedback.

One of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented...The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

It is pretty clear to everyone that the incident in question is highly significant considering relentless public interest and persistence of coverage. It was certainly significant enough for the Vice President of the country to weigh in. The significance of the incident stems from the fact that it has single-handedly converged public opinion and debate on a number of public pain points 1) Campus rapes/ rape culture 2) Public attitude towards sexual assault 3) The influence of alcohol among college students 4) The influence of alcohol in acts of sexual assault 5) Judicial prudence 6) The volume of punishment for individuals convicted of sexual assaults 7) Judicial performance 8) Impact of sexual assault on victims 9) The influence of race and background in convictions 10) The role of the Jury 11) The recall of Judges 12) Crimes and social-media activism, etc.

Brock Turner was the creator of this incident. If the incident is undoubtedly significant, shouldn't the one person reasoned to have perpetrated the incident be significant for the purpose of facts and information? It is also very very important to understand that the "sentencing" which brought even more worldwide attention to the case, was partly justified by the Judge Aaron Persky, based on his evaluation of who 'Brock Turner' was as an 'individual'. It can thus effectively be argued that, Brock Turner's biography itself led to the minimal punishment and the consequent public backlash. A reader and researcher about this incident may need to study and understand the motivations and background of the person behind the incident to understand both his and the Judges decisions, and thus the incident. A biography about Brock Turner, an adult convicted of a sexual assault in a highly influential case is by no means futile and in fact highly notable. Brock Turner and his role in the incident are also very well documented.

I do think the title of the page should either be left unchanged from "Brock Turner" or at least the current title should be modified with the full name of Brock Turner or a new biographical page should be created on "Brock Turner".

Do let me know your views. Thanks SB1304 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi SB1304. Closing admins only assess the consensus of the discussion, we try and view things as objectively as possible and not let our opinion cloud the result. I think you would agree there was near unanimous agreement at the RM that the article should be about the incident and various things associated with than a biography (the closing admin at the AfD also noted this). So even if I personally agreed with your argument here, it would not change much. I can't say that I do, though. The general rule of thumb is ask yourself, would anyone have heard of this person if not for this incident? If the answer is no then the article should be about the event and not the individual. BLP1E and BIO1E both reinforce this. All RM decisions are reviewable at Wikipedia:Move review and you are welcome to start a discussion there asking people to assess my decision if you want. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Chel Hill

Hello! Just sending a note to let you know I've updated some of the citing on my entry. Thank you. (ProEmcee (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC))

Hi ProEmcee. Noted and I appreciate your effort. However, I am very unlikely to be the admin that makes the final decision on this article so you are better off making any comments like this at the AfD page. In particular, try to focus on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (ProEmcee (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC))

Covent Garden

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. There is some concern that we may need to reschedule because it would be inappropriate to have a featured article on the main page while there is a FAR in place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey SilkTork. I remember this article and its FAC. I've chucked the FAR on my watchlist, but I don't have much experience in that area so I'll leave it to some of the regulars there to give advice on how you should proceed. If anyone starts listing specific issues they have with the article I'd be happy to try and chip in to work on them, but at the moment the complaints seem a bit nebulous. Good luck, Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the complaints are too vague for us to easily address. Scott seems to have an issue with Wikipedia as a whole, and is perhaps trying to make a point about the FA process, though I'm not clear on what it is. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

An absolute mess of moves neglecting subpages and cut-and-paste moves

Pinging Anthony Appleyard for awareness as well.

Currently, Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry needs a histmerge with Catholicism and Freemasonry. The problem goes a bit deeper. See Special:Permalink/308972952. The talk page has 10 archives that were not moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry, with a bad redirect back in 2009 that was uncaught.

In the past 3 days, the page has been moved here, here, and here without regard for subpages or consensus. I suggest a move protection applied, the page history-merged, and talk subpages merged to 1 location.

For reference (don't know if this is all):

• Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry
• Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry (including an old article version)

Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have history-merged Catholicism and Freemasonry to Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry. I moved each Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive ''n'' to Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive ''n+1'', and Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry to Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive 1. I then moved them to be archives of Talk:Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry. There is matter to tidy up at the start of Talk:Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry/Archive 1 which was at the start of Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. You may have to re-register these 2 pages with User:MiszaBot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Archive tidy is done, re-registered. Move protection might not be necessary at this point. I guess the thing that's become a bit outdated is the original request to revert a page title-turned RM. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Looks like all the histmerge issues have been resolved already, thanks both. In case you're interested I've nominated Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry for MFD and Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry for RFD which I found when looking at the prefindex. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for your support Jenks24! and yes I am late but not that late. I was helped and the merger discussion proved to be a success . Thank you! Sammy.joseph (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad everything has worked out. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Highett, Victoria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Highett''' is a suburb in [[Melbourne]], Victoria, Australia], 16 km south-east of Melbourne's [[Melbourne city centre|central business district]] and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Jenks. Thank you for pointing out my error in doing a copy-and-paste move. I have since requested a history merge on the pages in question. Mr.Daywalker16 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Daywalker16: You're welcome. I actually performed the history merge when I left you the message so everything is already taken care of. No harm done. Jenks24 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jenson457

Please revoke talk page access for user:Jenson457. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7543:4BD8:DBA8:38C3 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bit of mess

Thank you for closing the RM of Carl Nielsen works. The two articles about Busoni's works have not the same scope, as you can easily see looking at them. The list of compositions is a complete list of his works, published or unpublished, repertory pieces or forgotten, ... too much for the average user, so I created a sortable list of those works mentioned in the biography, open to addition, - and called it "works" (also not complete), without a hint at completeness. - Should we now try to move Max Reger works back, for consistency? It was renamed because a few users didn't like the name, while most users and especially readers don't care ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. I know they don't actually have the same scope (otherwise we could just delete one or merge), I'm saying that "Ferruccio Busoni works" and "List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni" would seem to have the exact same scope until you actually read the articles. That is not ideal. And sorry, but I don't think we can take this as a consensus to move the Reger page back. If anything, it shows we don't have any sort of consensus/agreement about what should be done with these types of pages. There probably needs to be a broader RfC, probably held at the classical music project, to determine a) do we need these separate lists of major works?, and b) if we do, what should we name them so they don't get confused with the lists of all works? This constant pushing of one or two articles at a time at RM gets us nowhere (I know this is not your fault). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Background: It all began with "Franz Kafka works", because a list of his works seemed loo long for the biography, and there was Franz Kafka bibliography, which was much more (+ mostly unsourced, not possible to link to from a featured article). We are talking 2012. Sad history: "works" was just merged with the bibliography, or rather: added at that article's end, - which looks like a bit of a mess to me. Carl Nielsen works was created in 2015 for the composer's centenary and was stable until this move request (there was a different List of compositions before, which was redirected in the end), Busoni and Reger (there was a different List of compositions before, which was redirected in the end) followed in 2016 for the feast days of those people, all stable with hundreds of readers. For Nielsen and Reger, it's the only list, but similar in style to the "short" Busoni. As I pointed out (to no avail) in the Reger discussion: I have to code links to it, and I will not type "List of compositions by" every time I want to link to a piece, even if that should become the official name of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just regarding the coding, we can always use redirects so even if it becomes "List of compositions by ..." the old "works" shorthand should be OK as a link. My personal opinion is that if these condensed lists are useful to readers and the classical music project then we should keep them. My preference, without looking into much more than seeing the RMs and this short discussion here, would be to rename them to somehow articulate the scope in the title, e.g. by using "major", and adding a hatnote to point to the full list. If I wasn't lazy I'd start the RfC myself, but arguing with George about consistency can feel like hitting your head against a brick wall. Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You should see me smile about the last ;) (I archived a recent discussion on my talk, he on his talk.) Reger: you can't call it "major works", because it's much more, - just not complete. I know about the redirects, but try to link to the real thing. I hate The Flying Dutchman (opera) for a piece in German, but would still not link to Der fliegende Holländer, but pipe it. No way though that I would use that extra-long List of compositions by Max Reger, when I want to simply (!) refer to a piece on the list, as Max Reger works#144a does, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, isn't the Reger one actually a full list that includes everything he did? There doesn't seem to be two lists for him. Which would mean there's no need to specify major there, I agree (although I suppose that might raise consistency issues...). On the redirect thing, we might have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, Max Reger works#144a works just as well whatever the title is. Jenks24 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for more thoughts. We have now a discussion on Classical music. I just discovered that redirects such as Schumann works were created as early as 2008, - that works for me ;) - I'd prefer the article title to also be practically used, but if not, so be it, - we may have titles then with no link. - Reger composed much more, but I have no time right now to add it, - no end in sight, and therefore some impatience in move discussions. Did you know how many hundred words we spent already on BWV 4 about a space in the title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It can often feel like the main goal of the project is to prove Parkinson's law of triviality true. I once spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about whether our article should be at yoghurt or yogurt. I still have no idea why. Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

George reminded me of my unhappy Christmas over A Boy was Born, 2014 that was, and unforgotten, - no, we may not call the work as the creator called it, we have house rules that trump everything, and if they find out five years later that a space seems to be too much, they just move, - and then we argue and loose patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Daniel's final vision

Hello Jenks. I realised shortly after creating that page that I'd made a mistake. But what's the proper way to rearrange the articles? PiCo (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've caught up with it now. Thanks for your action. This is an article that very few people care about, but those who do, do so deeply. I hope there will be acceptance - after all, the motive is simply to create a more useful article by merging 3 into 1.PiCo (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Basically, cut-and-paste moves are undesirable because they break the attribution history, which is legally required. Instead the move function can be used to rename a page and take the history with it. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah ah ah... You forgot to tidy up

Your deletion of this redirect appears to have created about a hundred red links across the board. Just sayin'. -- 199.85.208.19 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a read of Talk:Mike Stone (record producer). They are apparently different people. Jenks24 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. Article "Mike Stone (record producer)" claims that he is indeed the guy who used to produce records for April Wine. Since your deletion of the redirect however, multiple April Wine related articles and at least one applicable category now display red "Mike Stone" links... and, I'm guessing the same thing probably applies to at least 90% of the other items listed. I agree with you that the deleted redirect is/was worded in an implausible manner, but an unused orphan it most certainly is not. I believe it would be far more efficient to simply re-enable that redirect than it would be to have someone dab all those articles individually. -- 199.85.208.19 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So the links should be fixed to point to the Mike Stone (record producer) article in cases where they are actually referring to him and not the "Clay" producer. It will need to be someone who has some knowledge of the topic area, which I am not. Recreating the redirect won't help with any of that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush jamai

These various Taharrush terms are now known in various countries and languages, several Wikipedias have articles on it, and en-Wikipedia can not make it just a redirect to an Egypt-centric article. There was no consensus in Talk:Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt/Archive_2#Requested_move_1_February_2016, and things have changed since. --89.204.154.11 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring and being disruptive. --89.204.154.11 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus, that was the whole point of the closure made by Drmies. What other Wikipedias do has no relevance to this one. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Drmies wrote "The proposal to move this has support. There is also support for not moving this, that much is clear in this rather contentious discussion". So much for clear consensus months ago.

The link between assaults in Cologne, Berlin, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Stuttgart; Salzburg, Austria; Helsinki, Finland; Kalmar and Malmö, Sweden; and Zurich, Switzerland is surely not "in Egypt", but that they have been described as Taharrush. The term exists, is known, and used outside of Egypt and a single En-wiki article. No en-wikipedia "clear consensus" or mass assault of POV pushers can deny that. --89.204.154.11 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a spectacular example of quoting out of context. What he actually wrote was "The proposal to move this has support. There is also support for not moving this, that much is clear in this rather contentious discussion, but the movers have it." (emphasis mine). So you disagree with that decision, that's fine. Edit warring to try and push your point of view is not. I'll leave this for someone else to revert you, which is inevitable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It is an example of quoting the part relevant to my point: that there was support for both sides, so no consensus in this rather contentious discussion. What I did not include, for good, was that he proclaimed one side as winners anyway: the movers, instead of keeping the status quo when there is no clear consensus. So, as you asked for it: shame on you and him for being spectacular examples of bad Wikipedia admins. --89.204.154.11 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--there was a proposal, and there was no unanimous agreement? I'm shocked. That was an interesting discussion, BTW--Jenks, did you read the whole thing, and the earlier talk page threads? Yes, there was support for the other side, but it was not very good/strong compared to the one side. IP, yeah, you're totally quoting out of context, kind of like you're compiling a bunch of quotes for a political attack ad, but the rest of that close is pretty comprehensive. If you wish to really pursue this, good luck, but I do take some comfort from the fact that if I'm a bad example of a Wikipedia admin, I'm at least a spectacular bad example. Plus, I'm together with Jenks in that category, and we can probably find stuff to talk about or games to play. Jenks, UNO or Sleeping Queens? You get the first pick. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Jenks, I blocked the IP, for reasons that I think are obvious; their disruption was spread over a couple of articles. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed it would be heading in that direction or protection, but generally try and pass the buck so that people whinge at someone else (that can be you now). I remember reading the stuff at the time and agreeing with your decision; I glanced at the talk page again today and didn't see anything to think that should be changed or that there were many people who had a problem with it, which has to be a win for an article like that.

And I'd have to pick Uno, which I thank you for bringing up – I just gave my cousin who I used to play that with all the time as a kid a text reminding him of his many losses to me. I've actually never heard of Sleeping Queens before and unfortunately our article didn't tell me much about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice pic

Came here to leave a note about those King comma moves (thanks for suggesting, as I've done while being name-called and facing "shoo, go away" comments on each page, that the issue should be resolved at the main King page), but all of that pales after seeing and copying to my computer the bird pic on your user page. Nice. Randy Kryn 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, that comma. Jenks, that was not a fun RfC. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem, Randy. I was a bit miffed to be criticised about it honestly. If it really is so straightforward the worst case scenario is that it moves a week later that it originally would have – hardly an imposition considering it's been at the current title for 5+ years without a problem. On a more general whinge, I thought you made a great close, Drmies, that was nuanced and specifically recommended grandfathering, but it's been used as a bludgeon to move thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles, most of which had been uncontroversially at their titles for many years. And the cleanup from such moves has not been brilliant, as often happens in any mass-editing situation. Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. yes, it's a beautiful picture. Wilsons Prom is one of my favourite places in the world and JJ Harrison is an amazing photographer. Wikipedia is lucky he's contributed so much to us. Jenks24 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. I didn't even see it, I guess that's for the best seeing as it got revdel'd. . Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It wasn't particularly interesting, just generic insults. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

82.145.45.33 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind re-sending it? There doesn't seem to be anything in my inbox. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

Australian football
... you were recipient no. 1265 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Gerda. You're a champion for keeping this project running the last few years. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV, appreciated ;) - 10 July - it took only 300 years to restore her good name. Took only three for mine, and some still don't believe that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

a welcome template is disgusting behavior?

You see I struck through my remarks when I saw the editor has been here less than.. six months.. right?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You were clearly trying to belittle that editor, don't try and pass it off as something else. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

After a bit of reflection, it was overly harsh to say it was "disgusting". But it was definitely rude and came across as mean-spirited. And more importantly, it got us absolutely nowhere in a) improving the encylopedia, b) improving the policy, c) improving Music's closures. Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Last post here: I disagree on all counts. First, he needed the damn template, no matter what you nor others believe. Six months is the same as six minutes. Second, some editors respond to gruffness by retaliating; some reconsider. Hoping this guy is the latter.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tungning RM redux

You recently participated in a move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Tungning. I have made another proposal based on that discussion here if you would like to weigh in. —  AjaxSmack  14:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion/block

Hi Jenks24, if you have a moment could you have a look at this diff from Mohamed1900q, namely the section "so i promise people to add bad information" - I think, given their previous behaviour and this comment, a NOTHERE block may be in order? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Samtar. I think you're probably right, but I'm not sure what we usually do when an editor starts making odd threats like this when a decision goes against them. It doesn't look like they've actually added any negative/incorrect information to other articles either, so maybe a final warning would be more appropriate. I'm not sure exactly; I'd kick this on to either ANI or another admin who's around and has more experience with this sort of thing. Sorry I couldn't be of more use, apart from obvious vandalism stuff blocks aren't really my forte. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries Jenks24! Thank you for having a look anyway :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Block evading IP move requests

There are a new set of move requests by 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:3C1A:53BD:793E:CDDC, which is on the same /64 as 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:189E:A4B0:6469:D4DE, whose moves you closed last week. I would close them, but it's probably better that the early closes are done by an admin (NeilN has already blocked the /64 range for 3 months). -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 08:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've closed a few and left a few open, mainly ones that seemed reasonable or had support from someone other than the IP. If there's any specifically that are still open that you think should be closed let me know (or feel free to close them yourself if they're unsupported). Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 09:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover request

Once again, thanks for your help on the Mason Weems Talk page. For good measure I have just reviewed the Page mover and Page move pages, most of which I was already familiar with. I've moved a few pages over the years with no issues, but alas I've gotten something of a crash, hands on, course in the finer aspects of page moving here. Don't know if my timing is best here, but, I've come away from this rather enlightening episode for the better and was hoping I could be granted page mover rights. I should mention that I have no pressing need and no other pages immediately in mind but thought this privilege would be nice to have somewhere along the line. I have had File mover rights on both Wikipedia and Commons for some time now and know well when and when not to move files. Before my request is even considered however I still need to know something. I understand that a page which is protected from moves can only be moved by an administrator -- but would such a move be allowed by editors with Page mover rights? Needless to say, hopefully, I have no intentions of going against consensus, or making any controversial moves but simply want to know about this finer point before being considered. As a writer/editor of historical biographies and history in general I am thoroughly familiar with naming conventions for people, bibliographies and manuscripts, areas where I am mostly involved. In any case, thanx for all of your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Short answer: no. You can see the relatively recent discussion where the page mover right was created at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/Archive 1#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created where it was suggested that page movers should have that ability. However, that particular part of the proposal failed (most others passed). Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a rather long discussion, but just to clear here, was your 'no' in response to non-administrator/page-movers being able to move a protected page, or 'no' to my overall request? Do I have to go through a formal page mover request? I'm not contesting any decision here, just wondering. Re: requirements it appears I meet all requirements. i.e. I participated in a Requested move debate/resolution on the Leif Erricson page, which I got support for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I misunderstood you. The "no" was to whether page movers can move protected pages. I thought you were wanting to know that before you decided to ask for the userright, but on re-reading I see you meant you simply needed to understand that before your request should be considered. You don't have to make a formal request, I'll look into it now. Jenks24 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, you probably have less actual page moves and less experience at RM than was really envisaged when the userright was created, but on the other hand you're an experienced and sensible editor who holds other advanced userrights and nothing bad has come of that, so I'm happy enough to trust you with it. Going through your move log a few things stuck out me (the majority of moves were fine): you moved a page to George Henry. Preble (note the full stop) and it stayed like that for several months until someone else fixed it, you'll need to be more careful than that now; we use "(film)" as disambiguation, not "(movie)"; we generally try to avoid using slashes in titles for MoS reasons (WP:SLASH) and because it makes the talk page render as a subpage; in a couple of cases, John L. Gardner and Leif Erickson, you moved a page and intended to point the resulting redirect elsewhere, but it ended up left as is until someone else came along and corrected it. These things are mostly from several years ago (because you haven't done a ton of moves it didn't take long to look through), so chances are you already know some or all of that now. And none of it is problematic enough to mean I shouldn't grant you the userright. My main guidance, apart from the specific stuff above, would be to follow the instructions at the page mover information page – especially the redirect suppression criteria if you are suppressing redirects, because it acts effectively as deletion. And if you ever make a bold move and someone who isn't a page mover or admin disagrees with it but can't revert themselves, remember to revert your move and then discuss it, regardless of whether you're in the right or not. Feel free to ask me if you ever have any questions. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)