![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi Jenks. I can see what's happened here. These articles were created a few years ago based on what was then known but, since CricketArchive decided in 2010 to move its first-class cricket startpoint back to 1772 (from 1801), they've done some research into players who were around at that time and expanded their coverage. So, yes, you're absolutely right that the old articles should be renamed accordingly and updated. Well done. Thanks for letting me know too. All the best. ---- Jack | talk page 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I'm intrigued for your reason for some of these moves. The one that particularly caught my attention was Ray Wilson (English footballer). Did you consider that this footballer was the primary topic for Ray Wilson (footballer)? It is not obvious from your edit summary that you did. As Ray Wilson (footballer) is also a disambiguation page it is also possible that I'm missing a consensus on how to deal with this sort of issue. Could you therefore explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Dpmuk ( talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! -- Sp33dyphil © • © 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my sloppy work. Much appreciated. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I forget which style of citation style I specifically use (I learned it in college but forget the name), but it doesn't use "pp" to indicate page ranges. Also, some citation styles don't even include the "p". I for one have never had an issue not using "pp" in Good Article Nominations, Peer Reviews, Featured Article Candidates, or Featured Article Reviews. What matters most is the established citation style for an article be maintained; Wikipedia accepts all citation styles as long as they are internally consistent in an article. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance on the Compiled sofware redirect. Creating the separate Compiled software redirect (and leaving the Compiled sofware redirect intact) was my initial course of action. I realized though that it would not correct the typo in articles that linked to the Compiled sofware redirect, and on discovering the "move" feature for renaming pages wondered whether that would correct any pre-existing links in articles to the Compiled sofware redirect (so that they changed to the new Compiled software redirect) thus fixing any typos in articles.
I really appreciate your help as I'm a really new editor - hence my uncertainty over how to go about correcting the redirect. So that I don't mess anything up, could you recommend an experienced editor (such as yourself maybe?) that I could run things by, before going ahead with anything? Once I fully acquaint myself with the WikiLove feature, I'll be sure to give you a proper "thank you". :-) Annoyamouse ( talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
This special barnstar is awarded to Jenks24 as a show of appreciation from Annoyamouse for Jenks24's generosity in taking the time to help out a newbie Wikipedian who really appreciated it. Annoyamouse ( talk) 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
Shall I CU or assume good faith first? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. — Joseph Fox 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Due to your recent weigh in at Mayor Quimby and/or Principal Skinner renaming, please feel free to weigh in on Dr. Hibbert and Dr. Nick renaming. Thanks, CTJF83 21:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Jenks, Thanks for the tip. That's what I like about WP. When you are making a mistake consistently, someone steps in and sets you straight. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on an article that will be ready to join mainspace in a few days. Can you help me with suggestions as to what it should be called? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. How are you? I just wanted to tell you that "Single Ladies" is at FAC. Jivesh 1205 ( talk) 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a matter of opinion. It is Self referential, it is an editor to editor communication and unlike {{ unreferenced}} it is of no direct benefit to the reader. -- PBS ( talk) 09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Great catch, I just added the references to the page, "Unconquered (1989 film)". -- Fsilvers ( talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for welcoming me. The article section Lake Parime has an extended citation from an external blog entry (in Portuguese), translated into pretty broken English. At first glance, I was going to leave it, as I thought the original source might have been an interview done in English and was actually literally what was said in the source. But, I opened the link and it is in Portuguese. So - can anyone just do their best to translate from the source, and still format it as if it is a direct citation? I actually speak fluent Portuguese, and think I could do a better job of translating, but I don't know if that is acceptable in the sense of a citation, since translation isn't an exact science and can be subjective, interpreting what the author was really trying to say. What is the best way to go in a situation like that?
Dunc0029 ( talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting quite wary of linkrot for articles I'm preparing. I was wondering, before I go headlong down the road of webcitation, if you could look at this edit and tell me what you think as to the way archive links are introduced. This is sort of an ex-post move, because I want to 'freeze' the article from any more linkrot, but don't want to have to redo all the references in the style of Olympus scandal. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is ok, but I have re-listed the articles
5 O'Clock and
5 O'clock (song) with a move proposal together at
5 O'clock (song)'s talk page here:
Talk:5 O'clock (song)#Requested move 2. I asked on said talk page whether or not I should do so and waited 24 hrs with no response so I just went ahead and did it. There is also new evidence to consider regarding why they should be moved and my move proposal involves slightly different proposed names then others have proposed before. I hope that this helps make things clearer for everyone and not more confusing :-)
I am letting all the editors who were involved in recent discussions know.
Please see the talk page for more info.
Thanks,
MsBatfish (
talk)
08:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " USB". Thank you. -- Crispmuncher ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Your argument to revert to "Afd" is a circular one, and obviously doesn't stick. But respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Debresser ( talk) 13:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have an errant ref on the Olympus scandal article. I don't know why it won't display when everything seems to be correct. Can you have a look at it for me, please? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Since you commented on my recent request to rename Professor Farnsworth, I'm notifying you about the rename of Fry, feel free to comment: Talk:Philip_J._Fry#Rename. CTJF83 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The same editor recently made another controversial diacritics related move from Ladislav Bezak which should also be reverted per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Another one, made by a user with sporadic edit history. Please revert move of Jakub Cerny per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I am appalled that User:Djsasso has uncivilly attacked both you [1] [2] and another admin [3] [4] to falsely accuse you of being a meatpuppet. Your reversions of clearly controversial moves were properly made in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and for that admin to abuse his powers to edit war, and to continue to push his pro-diacritics agenda is shameful. I am not the only editor who is concerned about his behaviour as evidenced by the User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9#Dios 'yet again' discussion on his talk page. Djsasso has ignored all warnings about abusing his admin powers to make controversial moves, most recently here. Something should really be done to reign this guy in as his editing has now past the point of being disruptive. Dolovis ( talk) 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that I've given up on these diacritics RMs – I honestly couldn't care less and the only actions I take these days is to revert undiscussed moves and object to diacritics moves being listed as "uncontroversial" at RM (and that is whether they are adding or removing diacritics). The only thing I think we can safely say is that no diacritics-related moves are uncontroversial and all should go through a discussion. As I said above, to move war so that it stays at your preference until that discussion happens is not OK, but unfortunately I just don't care enough about this issue to get into yet another debate about it or continue your move war. Jenks24 ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for all your assistance and thoughtful clean-ups of my mistakes and inadvertent errors, each of them have been greatly appreciated!! Here's a beer for you to toast in 2012 Lindsay658 ( talk) 02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Will you have time to copy-edit an article for me? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
How do I get the archived peer review back? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you have elected to revert my addition of a long brewing (and having made the rounds at multiple DR venues including DRN, ANI, AN, 3O, and others) without even giving me a note letting me know you did it. Being that the principle is going to affect multiple pages (in the same vein), I was under the impression that it qualified for CENT under "Discussions on matters that have a wide impact". I acknoledge that it strays into the Inappropriate reasons category, however this discussion has been very heated for several 6 months or more, so I would think that listing it at CENT would have brought different users in to a debate that could have helped firm up consensus. Please reconsider. Hasteur ( talk) 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to your final question, I made the undo even though I have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment because I honestly thought (naively in hindsight) that it would be uncontroversial and discussion would not be required. Jenks24 ( talk) 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! for some reason, your edit of "Archie Roberts" blocked what I was trying to add. Could you please check that the issues you raised earlier have been incorporated in my expansion. Sorry to be a pest, but there was not other way of doing things. Best to you. Lindsay658 ( talk) 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. How are you? Back? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Must admit I'm not a huge fan of Beyonce. I don't listen to much music at all, to be honest, and when I do it's generally just whatever's on the radio, so I do hear Beyonce's stuff every now and then. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you online from my watchlist, and I was just wondering if its possible to use a certain {{#tag:ref|Words|group="note"}} more than once in an article. For example, how you'd use <ref name="Name"/> for more than one ref on a page. Thanks, — Status { talk contribs 07:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I was wondering if you could have another look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League. It probably sounds arrogant considering that it was 4:1 in favour of deletion, but I really don't think there was a consensus to delete. I think I clearly showed that the tournament meets GNG (and CLUB, though I'm still not sure why that was used as a rationale), while the delete voters did not refute this and mainly used "just not notable"-type arguments. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Jenks, it might me a huge coincidence, although I doubt it. There are two editors who voted in favor of the move on Paraguayan War's talk page, Paulomazzeirj and Ilhador. Both are certainly Brazilians and I suspect that they are the same person. Take a look at both user contributions [5] [6]. It might be one, big coincidence that both share an interest on Soviet tanks and Royal Houses. I and think is even more odd when you notice that Paulomazzeirj hasn't edited for almost 2 years. Appearing here, out of nowhere, in an article which he never contributed before? -- Lecen ( talk) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I crossed the line on Paraguayan War's talk page. It bothered me a lot his accusation that the name itself is Brazilian POV. Whoever diagrees with him he says that its either "OR" or they are simply wrong. I disagree with the idea of proposing another move because as you can see, only he and Wee Curry Monster don't like the title. I would understand a request to move if there were many editors complaining about it, which is clearly not the case. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you seem to be acting as a kind of neutral observer I Thought it wouldn't harm if I made a few comments about the move request. You saw the sock puppets, the blatant canvassing, messages erased, etc... Take a look at the message written by the editor who asked the move on Jimbo Wales' talke page: "...this seems to be an issue raised by Brazilian/Portuguese wikipedians (they seem to all be from either place). I am not a native English speaker either, and so perhaps you might have a better perspective on the matter? I don't even know if their argument is even relevant to the move discussion." Except for myself, and Paulista, everyone else who voted against the move is a native English speaker. But look at what is written in bold. You can have an idea of how serious it is his argument.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi Jenks. I can see what's happened here. These articles were created a few years ago based on what was then known but, since CricketArchive decided in 2010 to move its first-class cricket startpoint back to 1772 (from 1801), they've done some research into players who were around at that time and expanded their coverage. So, yes, you're absolutely right that the old articles should be renamed accordingly and updated. Well done. Thanks for letting me know too. All the best. ---- Jack | talk page 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I'm intrigued for your reason for some of these moves. The one that particularly caught my attention was Ray Wilson (English footballer). Did you consider that this footballer was the primary topic for Ray Wilson (footballer)? It is not obvious from your edit summary that you did. As Ray Wilson (footballer) is also a disambiguation page it is also possible that I'm missing a consensus on how to deal with this sort of issue. Could you therefore explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Dpmuk ( talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! -- Sp33dyphil © • © 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my sloppy work. Much appreciated. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I forget which style of citation style I specifically use (I learned it in college but forget the name), but it doesn't use "pp" to indicate page ranges. Also, some citation styles don't even include the "p". I for one have never had an issue not using "pp" in Good Article Nominations, Peer Reviews, Featured Article Candidates, or Featured Article Reviews. What matters most is the established citation style for an article be maintained; Wikipedia accepts all citation styles as long as they are internally consistent in an article. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance on the Compiled sofware redirect. Creating the separate Compiled software redirect (and leaving the Compiled sofware redirect intact) was my initial course of action. I realized though that it would not correct the typo in articles that linked to the Compiled sofware redirect, and on discovering the "move" feature for renaming pages wondered whether that would correct any pre-existing links in articles to the Compiled sofware redirect (so that they changed to the new Compiled software redirect) thus fixing any typos in articles.
I really appreciate your help as I'm a really new editor - hence my uncertainty over how to go about correcting the redirect. So that I don't mess anything up, could you recommend an experienced editor (such as yourself maybe?) that I could run things by, before going ahead with anything? Once I fully acquaint myself with the WikiLove feature, I'll be sure to give you a proper "thank you". :-) Annoyamouse ( talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
This special barnstar is awarded to Jenks24 as a show of appreciation from Annoyamouse for Jenks24's generosity in taking the time to help out a newbie Wikipedian who really appreciated it. Annoyamouse ( talk) 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
Shall I CU or assume good faith first? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. — Joseph Fox 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Due to your recent weigh in at Mayor Quimby and/or Principal Skinner renaming, please feel free to weigh in on Dr. Hibbert and Dr. Nick renaming. Thanks, CTJF83 21:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Jenks, Thanks for the tip. That's what I like about WP. When you are making a mistake consistently, someone steps in and sets you straight. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on an article that will be ready to join mainspace in a few days. Can you help me with suggestions as to what it should be called? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. How are you? I just wanted to tell you that "Single Ladies" is at FAC. Jivesh 1205 ( talk) 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a matter of opinion. It is Self referential, it is an editor to editor communication and unlike {{ unreferenced}} it is of no direct benefit to the reader. -- PBS ( talk) 09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Great catch, I just added the references to the page, "Unconquered (1989 film)". -- Fsilvers ( talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for welcoming me. The article section Lake Parime has an extended citation from an external blog entry (in Portuguese), translated into pretty broken English. At first glance, I was going to leave it, as I thought the original source might have been an interview done in English and was actually literally what was said in the source. But, I opened the link and it is in Portuguese. So - can anyone just do their best to translate from the source, and still format it as if it is a direct citation? I actually speak fluent Portuguese, and think I could do a better job of translating, but I don't know if that is acceptable in the sense of a citation, since translation isn't an exact science and can be subjective, interpreting what the author was really trying to say. What is the best way to go in a situation like that?
Dunc0029 ( talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting quite wary of linkrot for articles I'm preparing. I was wondering, before I go headlong down the road of webcitation, if you could look at this edit and tell me what you think as to the way archive links are introduced. This is sort of an ex-post move, because I want to 'freeze' the article from any more linkrot, but don't want to have to redo all the references in the style of Olympus scandal. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is ok, but I have re-listed the articles
5 O'Clock and
5 O'clock (song) with a move proposal together at
5 O'clock (song)'s talk page here:
Talk:5 O'clock (song)#Requested move 2. I asked on said talk page whether or not I should do so and waited 24 hrs with no response so I just went ahead and did it. There is also new evidence to consider regarding why they should be moved and my move proposal involves slightly different proposed names then others have proposed before. I hope that this helps make things clearer for everyone and not more confusing :-)
I am letting all the editors who were involved in recent discussions know.
Please see the talk page for more info.
Thanks,
MsBatfish (
talk)
08:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " USB". Thank you. -- Crispmuncher ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Your argument to revert to "Afd" is a circular one, and obviously doesn't stick. But respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Debresser ( talk) 13:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have an errant ref on the Olympus scandal article. I don't know why it won't display when everything seems to be correct. Can you have a look at it for me, please? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Since you commented on my recent request to rename Professor Farnsworth, I'm notifying you about the rename of Fry, feel free to comment: Talk:Philip_J._Fry#Rename. CTJF83 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The same editor recently made another controversial diacritics related move from Ladislav Bezak which should also be reverted per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Another one, made by a user with sporadic edit history. Please revert move of Jakub Cerny per BRD. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I am appalled that User:Djsasso has uncivilly attacked both you [1] [2] and another admin [3] [4] to falsely accuse you of being a meatpuppet. Your reversions of clearly controversial moves were properly made in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and for that admin to abuse his powers to edit war, and to continue to push his pro-diacritics agenda is shameful. I am not the only editor who is concerned about his behaviour as evidenced by the User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9#Dios 'yet again' discussion on his talk page. Djsasso has ignored all warnings about abusing his admin powers to make controversial moves, most recently here. Something should really be done to reign this guy in as his editing has now past the point of being disruptive. Dolovis ( talk) 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that I've given up on these diacritics RMs – I honestly couldn't care less and the only actions I take these days is to revert undiscussed moves and object to diacritics moves being listed as "uncontroversial" at RM (and that is whether they are adding or removing diacritics). The only thing I think we can safely say is that no diacritics-related moves are uncontroversial and all should go through a discussion. As I said above, to move war so that it stays at your preference until that discussion happens is not OK, but unfortunately I just don't care enough about this issue to get into yet another debate about it or continue your move war. Jenks24 ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for all your assistance and thoughtful clean-ups of my mistakes and inadvertent errors, each of them have been greatly appreciated!! Here's a beer for you to toast in 2012 Lindsay658 ( talk) 02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Will you have time to copy-edit an article for me? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
How do I get the archived peer review back? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you have elected to revert my addition of a long brewing (and having made the rounds at multiple DR venues including DRN, ANI, AN, 3O, and others) without even giving me a note letting me know you did it. Being that the principle is going to affect multiple pages (in the same vein), I was under the impression that it qualified for CENT under "Discussions on matters that have a wide impact". I acknoledge that it strays into the Inappropriate reasons category, however this discussion has been very heated for several 6 months or more, so I would think that listing it at CENT would have brought different users in to a debate that could have helped firm up consensus. Please reconsider. Hasteur ( talk) 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to your final question, I made the undo even though I have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment because I honestly thought (naively in hindsight) that it would be uncontroversial and discussion would not be required. Jenks24 ( talk) 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! for some reason, your edit of "Archie Roberts" blocked what I was trying to add. Could you please check that the issues you raised earlier have been incorporated in my expansion. Sorry to be a pest, but there was not other way of doing things. Best to you. Lindsay658 ( talk) 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. How are you? Back? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Must admit I'm not a huge fan of Beyonce. I don't listen to much music at all, to be honest, and when I do it's generally just whatever's on the radio, so I do hear Beyonce's stuff every now and then. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you online from my watchlist, and I was just wondering if its possible to use a certain {{#tag:ref|Words|group="note"}} more than once in an article. For example, how you'd use <ref name="Name"/> for more than one ref on a page. Thanks, — Status { talk contribs 07:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I was wondering if you could have another look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League. It probably sounds arrogant considering that it was 4:1 in favour of deletion, but I really don't think there was a consensus to delete. I think I clearly showed that the tournament meets GNG (and CLUB, though I'm still not sure why that was used as a rationale), while the delete voters did not refute this and mainly used "just not notable"-type arguments. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Jenks, it might me a huge coincidence, although I doubt it. There are two editors who voted in favor of the move on Paraguayan War's talk page, Paulomazzeirj and Ilhador. Both are certainly Brazilians and I suspect that they are the same person. Take a look at both user contributions [5] [6]. It might be one, big coincidence that both share an interest on Soviet tanks and Royal Houses. I and think is even more odd when you notice that Paulomazzeirj hasn't edited for almost 2 years. Appearing here, out of nowhere, in an article which he never contributed before? -- Lecen ( talk) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I crossed the line on Paraguayan War's talk page. It bothered me a lot his accusation that the name itself is Brazilian POV. Whoever diagrees with him he says that its either "OR" or they are simply wrong. I disagree with the idea of proposing another move because as you can see, only he and Wee Curry Monster don't like the title. I would understand a request to move if there were many editors complaining about it, which is clearly not the case. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you seem to be acting as a kind of neutral observer I Thought it wouldn't harm if I made a few comments about the move request. You saw the sock puppets, the blatant canvassing, messages erased, etc... Take a look at the message written by the editor who asked the move on Jimbo Wales' talke page: "...this seems to be an issue raised by Brazilian/Portuguese wikipedians (they seem to all be from either place). I am not a native English speaker either, and so perhaps you might have a better perspective on the matter? I don't even know if their argument is even relevant to the move discussion." Except for myself, and Paulista, everyone else who voted against the move is a native English speaker. But look at what is written in bold. You can have an idea of how serious it is his argument.