User talk:Jenks24/Archive 7

708:, which clued me in that you're not an admin. Though we haven't interacted much directly, I've seen you around WP:RM for a long time. I just took a look at your lengthy contributions, substantive articles created, high edit count, sober and amicable talk page responses and the like and though I can't truly know if Jimmy Hoffa's body isn't lying around somewhere deep in your edits, you seem like an ideal admin candidate. We definitely need more admins, especially, in my opinion, ones who know their way around WP:RM and WP:AT issues. Any desire to put yourself through it? I say it that way (and in the section header) because as I'm sure you know, it can be stressful, have unintended consequences, have people dig around looking for every skeleton, making the tiniest of molehills in your edits into towering mountains. I'm not trying to scare you off, but I wouldn't want you to go into it without your eyes wide open. Anyway, you may have people you know much better than I who would be willing to nominate you, but if you don't, I am offering.-- 1438:

controversial issue and the other side haven't shown up (for all the closing admin knows, the frequent dios supporters saw it but decided not to comment). In the last few weeks, I've seen pro diacritics RMs go through with a similar level of support and I wouldn't question their validity. To the diff, I think that's perfectly acceptable and if there is ever consensus to move back to the previous title I would fully expect the opposite to happen. To you last point of precedence, this is not the only RM I have seen where the consensus was to strip diacritics – I think there have been several tennis ones and a few hockey ones – so I'm too sure what your point is. If you are worried about others using it as a precedent, my only advice would be to refute those claims with your own precedents. Cheers,

684:

worth considering that creating this biography of Jardine is actually just giving more prominence to the issue. I've certainly never heard of Ebner and his book (and I doubt I'm alone in that) and this article, which is visible to Knowledge's millions of readers and can be edited by anyone, could very well have the opposite effect to the one you were trying to achieve. I really hope I'm not coming of too harsh here, as I understand this is an issue that could have real world consequences, but you are correct when you say this is not Knowledge's problem – for better or worse, Knowledge is not the place where you can come to right the world's wrongs. Best,

323:, etc) and 3.) There is quite a bit of standard, common use (especially among reliable sources dealing with wine) that use the capitalization of Champagne in reference to the wine and even the dictionary links that the OP included in his nom points this common capitalization use out. You don't have to review this info if you don't want to, but I thought it would be worthwhile to point out some new info to you since I've noticed that in other discussions you've participated in you tend to take a very even keel approach and weigh out all the info. I appreciate your time! 114: 1966: 2025: 1854: 1747: 1695: 232: 31: 664:

prevent his defense in the public record. This may not be Knowledge's problem, but it is a problem: If private figures are made public by the Internet, Knowledge is often the only arbiter of record. If he's a public figure for the purposes of journalism, but a private figure for the purposes of Knowledge, then something is askew. He doesn't wish to seek redress in the courts. The author conveyed these sentiments to me, and I created the profile.

743:). I would recommend basing that decision on guessing that the first 12 hours after posting, and the next 36 thereafter, should be a block of time when you're the most free to spend time answering additional questions. (Because of the prevalence of USA-based users here, it's not unlikely that no matter when it's transcluded, the most activity will be around 10:00 UTC.) In the mean time, you might want to start blocking out your answers to the 2133: 1453:

non-controversial. The problem with this RM is it goes against the stream. You're now going to be a RM admin - this kind of case will come up in 101 areas such as applying sectarian "MOS" to religion articles (I mean the Protestantizing, Catholicizing, Orthodoxizing, Yeshivaizing, Islamizing etc. of certain corners of territory on the encyclopedia). I am worried about this being used as a precedent because it is

1491:

editing process as East Europe editors tidy up after sports stubs, and that shouldn't be controversial either, if its poets, politicians, chemists and cellists. The reverse, a move from Janáček to Janacek is extremely controversial - Nico Hülkenberg - because it goes from accuracy to tabloid MOS. Which is why it appears there has never been one (and I say that having looked). This is the first.

2828: 2773: 1506:

those who specialise in sports. When I get some time this weekend I'll try and look back through my contribs as I'm sure that Ivanovic is not a lone outlier. As to the Hulkenberg debacle, that was one of the poorest admin decisions I've seen in my time here and, whichever title you or I prefer, I think everyone would agree that the way it was handled is an indictment on the RM process.

1127:

Why can't my image be kept if every other image remains? I see nothing wrong with it, in fact it's a beautiful image and I don't understand the persistent stubbornness and biased behaviour of users on Knowledge who tend to claim ownership over particular articles. It did not take me long to find that

723:

Wow, this is a nice surprise. I've been considering going for adminship for a while, mainly because of how backlogged RM often is, but I do follow RfA a little and the atmosphere there has had me wondering whether the effort would be worthwhile. To cut a fairly short story to its bare bones, this has

2323:

Hah, yep was a bit of a surprise to look at my watchlist and see "block" at every entry. And I've already tried to delete the main page (just to test Fuhghettaboutit's image in the section above, of course), but apparently even the admin superpowers can't get the job done. It really makes you wonder

1505:

I disagree that all RfCs are controversial and even in those that are that doesn't mean they don't result in a consensus one way or the other. I feel that moves both ways are controversial and don't see why Eastern European editors' opinions are of more value, or their decisions "more natural", than

1201:

has diacritics. Courcelles - who is one of the best RM admins - isn't an ideal closer - as an involved editor, though his "I utterly despise diacritics" comment somewhere was presumably a joke. Your own comment that none of the sources used the diacritic was debatable since her bilingual website was

2467:

There were only a couple of relatively minor problems with that one. Firstly, if the redirect contains a redirect tag, remember to restore it; the best way is to move the page without a redirect then restore all the redirect revisions; I've rolled back your redirect edit at Metta. Secondly, in that

982:

Hey, could you clarify what you meant by the last sentence in your response to q6 (from Drmies), your point #2 ("As the article is a BLP, I would default to leaving the potentially problematic article until the situation was resolved.") You would leave the article in what state (with or without the

817:

Jenks, I've written the nomination. The more I've looked at your edits, the more I think you may have a drama free ride. I can create the RFA page and then you can take your time filling out the rest and transclude whenever you'd like. No one (but for co-nominators, and me and you) should touch the

663:

The subject appeared in the 2009 crime book SIX DEGREES OF PARIS HILTON by Mark Ebner. He makes the claim (to the author) that he is a private figure, and by connecting him to known crime figures, even though he was a victim, his reputation has been damaged. Now by removing him from Knowledge, we

2920:

I do not concur with your discrimination or production criteria for at least this matter; indeed, you may deem the time and effort of merely issuing this feedback (my first one) as a counter- indication, for making a "non-trivial" effort to find some information -- on exactly the very day that you

1490:

Any RfC is by its nature controversial. Naturally it is controversial to force sports editors to make their stubs at Janáček, but it is not controversial that the whole of en.wp is at Janáček. Rather than an RfC it is much better that upgrades from Janacek to Janáček happen naturally by the normal

1475:

for example. As you can see, RM is almost an exact mirror of that RfC, albeit on a smaller scale. On precedent, I am quite sure that other RMs similar to Ivanovic have got up, but I can't name them for you and considering I have participated in a lot of RMs and there is no archival process for RM,

1422:. Are you really sure that you want to stand with this 4 person move? Is there any precedent for any move of this kind in en.wp's history? I am naturally concerned that since there is no other precedent "Ana Ivanovic" will become a calling-card, as it already has been used in other RM nominations. 683:

encyclopedic topics, not a way to set the record straight or advocate a point of view. If we were to write a proper biography of Mr Jardine we should summarise what has been written about him in reliable sources and that would arguably include what Ebner's book says about Jardine. It might also be

2953:

process, which means that an editor, not me, tagged the page for deletion and the tag remained in place for a week without anyone objecting. Once the tag had been in place for a week, it may deleted by any administrator, which in this case was me. As it says at the guideline that I just linked to

1819:

I'm sorry, but you need to have independent reliable sources to add "in popular culture" information to articles. The reason is because Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a random collection. While I appreciate that you were trying to add something you found interesting to the article, it might be

929:

You're welcome. Anytime you post is fine with me. Two things in your answers: re-read the following two snippets for missing prepositions: "...it is also one the admin areas..." and "...to get spend so much time on Knowledge..." By the way, don't forget to accept the nomination in the section set

779:. So, don't post a notice on your talk page here or anywhere else that you are being nominated or are running; don't casually mention it anywhere, don't tell your bestest WP:buddies, or any detractors (if you have any), about it even as an aside in a casual conversation. Note that the advice seen 1452:

Hi again. Prodiacritics RMs go without comment because they are uncontroversial in the wider (meaning non-tennis/hockey) community. As you note most moves to diacritics go simply on accuracy and reliable sources and never pass via RM because moves to "foreign names" for German composers etc are

1172:

Look, although I agree your image is nice, it seems pretty clear to me that the other images are of a higher quality. We cannot include every good image we have of Melbourne because that would bloat the article, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think Bidgee or myself is being biased

913:

OK, I've written my answers to the questions. I might tweak them a little, but unless there's something is missing/screwed up/etc I don't think they'll change much before it goes live. It's 11 pm here and I'm planning on transcluding tomorrow morning my time (I'm pretty sure I can follow those

592:

It's a bit arbitrary, but in general I would say three or four – in the case of Ames where the potential is to have 15 or 20 links then I would say it is fine to only have three bluelinks (though there are others at TfD who have a more strict opinion). I wouldn't think it POINT-y at all if you

568:

Re your comments that the template doesn't navigate anything, at the moment, it only navigates two articles. How many working links would you say would be a minimum? Three, four, more? I could easily create a couple more ship articles and/or one on the builder, but doing so would be a bit

1437:

Yes, I stand by it. There were are actually five supporters of the move, it was listed for a full week and there were no objections. This is actually more support than many RMs get and I don't think it would be right for the closing admin to not close it just because they know dios are a

314:

Howdy Jenks! I was wondering if you would take an opportunity to review some of the info added to the page move discussion. Your reasoning for supporting the move was the OP's comprehensive nomination but some key points were brought up namely 1.) The article is about the history of the

738:

Great. I'm going to take my time writing the nomination, and once done, which may not happen for a week, the timing of when to go live by transcluding the nomination into WP:RFA I will leave up to you (within reason, you can't expect me to post at what is my 4:30 a.m., i.e.,

480:

Hey Bagumba. Yeah, to be completely honest I'm not entirely sure. From my understanding it's the top level league in Victoria, which would probably give it a presumption of notability, but it has only been in existence since 2010. The league has quite a lot of coverage in

2368:

is on my watchlist. However, when moving the page to the old title to do the history merge, you shouldn't suppress the redirect, in case users are searching for the title while the history merge is taking place; creating red links like that also unnecessarily adds to the

724:

tipped me over the edge and I would be happy to accept your nomination. I've voted at a few RfAs, but I wouldn't classify myself as intimately familiar with the process, so I will defer to you on how this should best be approached. Cheers (and thanks for the kind words),

1660:

Thanks, I'm still checking in every few hours sure that something will have gone wrong, but it does look like it's in the bag. Even my over-the-top comments at the recent ArbCom case only resulted in one oppose. I'll almost certainly take you up on your offer. Cheers,

798:

Thanks for the advice, all taken on board, especially the stuff about advertising/canvassing. No rush on the nomination, whenever you get the time. I'll have a read over all those links in the next few days and start drafting my answers to the three stock questions.

497:, and many of the Leader articles are the type that would be dismissed at AfD as routine. I'm going to ask someone who knows a lot more than me about Victorian baseball, but if they can't find any sources either, then I'm probably going to turn it into a redirect to 2747:

Hmmm. OK, well I don't feel too strongly about it, so I'll leave it up to you. If you reckon it should be deleted, I'm happy to take it to TfD for you, but if you think it should be kept that's fine too as I see your point that it could be built on in the future.

2410:

Hey Graham, just saw this on my watchlist and realised I must have messed up something. Thanks for all the tips, much appreciated, and if you see me screw anything else up please feel free to give me a clip around the ears. Cheers for the copyedit, as well.

2373:. More importantly, don't add redirect revisions to the page history of the article; just leave them at the old title and restore them when the history merge is complete. I've done this to Whitten's article. By the way, congrats on getting admninship! 1520:

A Czech speaker's edits based on reliable Czech sources for the spelling of a Czech living person is more valuable than a non-Czech speaker's use of unreliable sources on the spelling of a Czech living person. If you find one, give me a holla. Cheers.

2260:

Hah, thanks. If I can make it through I'm sure you would and there's probably a queue of people lining up to nominate you! At least the Dockers can still have a decent crack this season, I'm worrying whether my Dees will even beat GWS...

1048:

it. I actually started researching you yesterday evening but then allowed myself to be halted by Malleus's reversion of my comment. I'm a very linear guy, and I didn't want to add my support until I heard back from Drmies. All sorted out

2245:

congrats from the other side of the country. You breezing through has given me the silly idea that I might even consider the gaunlet run sometime soon too ... maybe! I guess we need something to take our minds off the footy results!

1173:(AFAIK none of the images in the article were taken by either of us), we are genuinely trying to do the right thing by the article. It's great that I see you've now taken the issue to the talk page, but please note that not only are 516: 1252:— per all the sources on her page bottom... WTA, ITF, Fed Cup and even her own personal website, it is spelled Ivanovic. Her official facebook page is Ivanovic also. Shouldn't this page go where the English sources tell us? 338:

Hey Agne. Yes, I'm always happy to take another look if more evidence is presented. I'll address your points (or express my agreement with them) at the talk page, if that's OK. By the way, it's a fantastic article. Cheers,

1567:

There's an unresolved legal threat, and I was looking for an active admin. Was just about to let you know instead of going to WP:AN/I, and then noticed you hadn't got the sysop user-right yet. I guess that makes this

2818: 3029: 1796:

I'm trying to add something interesting and new, which is not known by many, (I didn't knew it until I saw this episode yesterday) but you seem to consider this a personal pet project. Well, be my guest.

436:

that caused the relist. RM bot just goes by the first timestamp it finds, that's why to relist a RM you leave a new timestamp inside or before the original nomination. Hope that clarifies things. Cheers,

1295: 2308:

Congrats. If you're anything like me and run a bunch of gadgets, you've now found yourself presented with a load of new stuff and you're panicking about blocking yourself or deleting the Main Page. --

2338:

Yeah, the developers must have got wise to that one. But watch out if you're used to tagging pages for CSD using Twinkle - if you don't adjust the setting it just deletes them once you have the bit.

1418:

But the real issue isn't the quickness, small view of it, but the page history 2005-2012, and the input of many editors not just to this page but any linking to it, and contributing to the text with

2468:

case, the talk page should have been history merged, which I've done. It's a good idea to deal with the talk page if needed after dealing with the article. Your work has also reminded me to finally

1197:

Congratulations again on RfA, however I honestly think you might want to reconsider maintaining the validity of this earlier RM. The nomination is misleading - Fyunck knows very well that Grasso's

1820:

best to think to yourself "is this the sort of information that I would expect to see in an encyclopedia?" If the answer is "no", then perhaps Knowledge isn't the place to share your information.

1645:

Congrats on the obvious result in a few hours. As I predicted, fairly drama free. If you have any new admin issues, want a second opinion on something, anything else, please do drop me a note.--

2917:

The deletion log indicates you as the admin responsible for the deletion of the "Shanti Carson" page (actress, producer, street artist) for the reason of "fails WP:ENT" on today, 2012-05-31.

2909: 2208:

I was really happy when I saw your RfA in my watchlist with the edit summary "Closing as successful"! I know you'll do a fine job as an admin (which is why I voted for you, of course).--

2862: 359:

Oops been adding short description recently, bu the latest run was correcting a spelling mistake in an earlier run, I then forgot to change it back. Thanks for the heads up any way.

305: 542: 3056: 1231:

Moved per consensus. I've edited the article a hood many times, but consensus is crystal clear. and an admin is required to perform the move (and RM is, per usual, backlogged).

525:

in your comments. You provided an education for me, helping me get out of a USA-only point-of-view. It's going to take me a while to develop a worldwide view. In the US, the

1016:

Yup, that was the "right" answer. Your entire answer was quite detailed and thorough - not surprising that you might miss something when reviewing it. Happens to all of us.--

2941: 855: 2840: 1625:

Hmmm. Not sure I have any books that cover the VFA, at least not in enough detail that Aziz would be mentioned. That said, will see what I can dig up this arvo. Cheers,

854:: change the date header to seven days later and add {{subst:RfA talk|USERNAME|EDIT STATS}} to the talk page of the nomination and add your edit stats (you should be 2937: 1472: 3102:

Hey Swifty. I'm trying to avoid slam dunk RMs at the moment so that I can close them, but if the votes start evening out, then I'll probably make a comment. Best,

998:

Ah, I should have proofread my answer more thoroughly. What I meant to write was "As the article is a BLP, I would default to leaving the potentially problematic

768:

and its always good to review a bunch of past nominations to see what others did, what got asked, why people opposed, what answers got people into hot water, etc.

332: 2141: 2735:

Not really, no, but it would be odd to have one for every municipality and not Anton. I'd imagiune there's probably more buildings which could have articles..♦

2832: 2820: 851: 1457:

precedent. I can find no trace of an East European living person (and citizen) ever having been anglicized like this in en.wp's history. Do you know of one?

172: 2708:

Congrats on adminship BTW. I just checked on Anton. Seems to be one of the few municipalities which doesn't have any villages aside from the main town..♦

1129: 827: 1992: 780: 220: 167: 150: 3044: 2660:

Don't worry, I can just revdelete these posts if someone becomes suspicious! It's late here, but I'll take a look at that RM in the morning. Cheers,

665: 2187: 673: 2347: 2333: 2255: 658: 2876: 2797: 2162: 1978: 717: 2955: 2763: 1670: 967: 953: 939: 899: 885: 867: 841: 808: 792: 771:

One thing I think I should say early. Do not make the mistake of even the most neutral advertisement. Anything that could possibly be considered

733: 102: 3084: 2224: 2078: 1841: 2975: 1771: 1544: 1530: 1515: 1500: 1485: 1466: 1447: 446: 3070: 1186: 873: 299: 190: 2985: 2903: 2757: 2729: 2121: 1821: 1160: 1209: 1116: 890:

Weird. I used the same damn tool but it must have had an error, because It did say 66. The difference is significant. I will go change it.--

876:

says I've edited ~450 unique AfDs, I would guess voting in greater than 400 of those, so I'm curious how you came to the number 66? Cheers,

693: 3019: 3005: 2927:

I'll get the page from another source; the real worry is that I guess there is no understanding given to decisions for speedy deletion....

2812: 2609: 2595: 2401: 2201: 2042: 1940: 1871: 1764: 1712: 383: 245: 2944: 2683: 2669: 2655: 2637: 2623: 2513: 2483: 2420: 2270: 2012: 1956: 1812: 923: 186: 2450: 2302: 1634: 1596: 648: 634: 620: 606: 557: 510: 3111: 474: 348: 2581: 2317: 2238: 1058: 1039: 1025: 1011: 420: 2954:

above, if anyone asks for recreation it will be undeleted automatically, which is what I've just done. You can now see the article at

2147: 1279: 1261: 761: 699: 200: 1905: 1829: 1790: 847: 611:

And I now see that you've already added some more bluelinks. I've withdrawn the TfD. Hope this hasn't been a bother for you. Best,

1235: 284: 765: 452: 103: 2962:

and if the result there is to delete it's pretty final. The best way to avoid that would be to demonstrate that the article has

1317: 2628:

Haha, thanks. And of course they will, anyone who votes otherwise is clearly wrong and their votes can safely be discounted ;)

2390:

When history merging, there's no need to move the talk page, either. I've also copyedit your talk header; hope you don't mind.

2365: 2106: 2543: 2063: 272: 193:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2287: 196: 3039:, the RabbitEars database also shows the callsign changes, although it hasn't exactly caught up to the FCC records (compare 1101: 1076: 586: 1804: 1192: 1079:. The relevant question was why did the RfA tracker template have a different number of supporters than in the actual RfA. 1654: 1414:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1301: 3040: 2933: 2614:

Job well done. Now it's time for a Vegemite sandwich. Will all Australian Rules players be getting primary topic status?

2384: 1431: 754: 1894: 1735: 1619: 992: 748: 2851: 1784: 1404: 1367: 1137: 368: 129:

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in

2888: 1867: 1708: 625:

It's not been a bother. I don't mind arguing my side when a good faith nomination is made. Thanks for the withdrawal.

1779: 461:

restored after it was previously deleted. Are there multiple independent sources of significant coverage to satisfy

2469: 2038: 1381: 1375: 850:. If you want me to transclude, just let me know. If you do it, note the things you should do contemporaneously per 1890: 1760: 1731: 1096: 389: 2873: 2741: 2714: 2181: 1683: 1676:

You'd need ~49 oppose votes in the next 4 hours to tank your RfA. I think you're pretty safe. Congrats.--v/r -

458: 1925: 1330: 275:, which is discussing recent changes that involve replacement of transclusion with custom tables. Thank you. -- 257: 1347: 1311: 1947:

Hah, I'm thinking I might just make keep making technical requests so you have to keep doing all the work! :)

1581: 319:

as well as the wine 2.) Wines that are name after regions are commonly capitalized just like the region (like

2836: 2781: 1419: 2674:

I'm not asking you to vote or close it or anything like that. I just thought you might find the RM amusing.

1284: 3096: 2527: 2127: 597:, and if you did I'd withdraw the TfD (though it looks like it will be kept anyway at this stage). Cheers, 327: 262: 94: 2930:

I'd like to ask if you would kindly undelete the page? (as an admin, I'm sure that you know the process).

2031: 2024: 238: 231: 2566: 2343: 2313: 2217: 2139:

Hey Jenks24, just wanted to stop by and say congratulations on your successful nomination for adminship!

563: 482: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1395:

Yes, move it to the common name, which is without diacritics. And the same should be done for Jankovic.

2084: 1909: 944:

Well, seeing as you've already voted I guess you don't need me to tell you it's live! Fingers crossed,

38: 2324:

whether RfA was worth it – if you can't delete the main page what's the point of even being an admin?

1974: 1650: 977: 963: 935: 895: 863: 823: 788: 713: 426:

I probably should have been clearer in my edit summary. It was actually the note that you left after

307: 2059: 1988: 1913: 1808: 1070: 758: 268: 3041:

this database entry from RB, listed under "Historical, Ownership, Transition, and Translator Data"

872:

Just read over the nomination, many thanks. One query, though: you say I've voted in 66 AfDs, but

2839:

with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going

2785: 2784:

with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going

2355: 1832:

to my attention, I have now removed everything that was not referenced from the article. Cheers,

1753: 1746: 1602: 1526: 1496: 1462: 1427: 1275: 1257: 1044:

I thought you deserved more than just a perfunctory support !vote, although it's clear you don't

415: 163: 146: 1206:

and Grasso... which wouldn't be needed in a non-tennis article given info was uncontroversial.

3052: 2854: 2847: 2433:

Just did another one, having taken on board your instructions. Would you mind taking a look at

2339: 2309: 2049: 1371: 1133: 705: 280: 158:

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against.

2884: 2736: 2709: 2102: 1400: 526: 2090: 2643: 1970: 1886: 1860: 1853: 1800: 1727: 1701: 1694: 1646: 1089: 959: 931: 891: 859: 819: 784: 709: 669: 354: 2532:

Yes, you're allowed (and in fact encouraged) to selectively delete the redirect revision.

2370: 8: 3107: 3066: 3015: 3001: 2971: 2899: 2808: 2793: 2753: 2725: 2665: 2633: 2605: 2591: 2577: 2509: 2446: 2416: 2329: 2298: 2266: 2234: 2197: 2176: 2158: 2117: 2074: 2055: 2008: 1984: 1952: 1837: 1666: 1630: 1592: 1540: 1535:

Fair enough, but I disagree that it is so clear cut. Will drop you a line if I do. Best,

1511: 1481: 1443: 1306: 1182: 1112: 1035: 1007: 949: 919: 881: 837: 804: 729: 689: 644: 616: 602: 553: 506: 442: 379: 364: 344: 295: 679:

Hi Paul. Unfortunately Knowledge is an encyclopedia and our goal is to have articles on

113: 2777: 2765: 2679: 2651: 2619: 2538: 2478: 2396: 2379: 2251: 2018: 1936: 1921: 1847: 1740: 1688: 1522: 1492: 1458: 1423: 1326: 1271: 1253: 1167: 405: 159: 142: 138: 134: 121: 1107:

Huh, that is interesting. I guess I've been hanging around RfA longer than I thought.

130: 3048: 3036: 2867: 2844: 2642:

I heard that maniacal laugh, you know. I noticed you're from Melbourne. I just RM'ed

2283: 1931:

Congrats! Now you can rename all those articles about mammals without assistance ;)

1775: 1640: 1615: 1577: 1343: 1122: 772: 630: 582: 538: 498: 470: 276: 216: 207:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

47: 17: 832:

Yep, sounds good. Will probably answer the questions in the next day or so. Cheers,

3094: 2880: 2098: 1680: 1396: 1156: 330: 252: 225: 2097:. I am not able to move the page, Please take care of this. Thanks in advance. ―― 2094: 1177:

unacceptable and can result in you being blocked, they also weaken your argument.

958:

Your timing was perfect for me, as I had just walked in the door. ¡buena suerte!--

577:

be notable enough to sustain the article. All the ships they built should be too.

2858: 2561: 2214: 1878: 1719: 1232: 1082: 1054: 1021: 988: 570: 141:

to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names.

1245: 137:

RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2989: 2950: 2789: 2587: 2171: 1899: 430: 398: 360: 1965: 1908:

as successful — you are now an administrator. Please consider the guidance at

2981: 2963: 2959: 2720:

Thanks. Huh, that's odd; do you think it's still worth having a navbox then?

2703: 2675: 2647: 2615: 2534: 2474: 2392: 2375: 2247: 1932: 1917: 1562: 1359: 1322: 1144: 533:

for merit] are completely separate. I will eventually learn. Thanks again,

517:

Thanks - Ref: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hamish and Andy's Euro Gap Year

462: 858:). I doubt you needed me to tell you this. Just being thorough. Good luck.-- 3103: 3062: 3011: 2967: 2895: 2804: 2749: 2721: 2661: 2629: 2601: 2573: 2505: 2442: 2412: 2325: 2294: 2279: 2262: 2230: 2193: 2154: 2113: 2070: 2004: 1948: 1833: 1662: 1626: 1611: 1588: 1573: 1536: 1507: 1477: 1471:

No, I must disagree that it is uncontroversial in the wider community, see

1439: 1363: 1355: 1339: 1249: 1178: 1174: 1108: 1031: 1030:

Thanks. By the way, your support was impressively detailed and researched.

1003: 945: 915: 877: 833: 800: 744: 725: 685: 640: 626: 612: 598: 578: 549: 534: 502: 466: 438: 375: 340: 291: 212: 208: 178: 3088: 3078: 2361: 1677: 1152: 914:

instructions) if that sounds good to you. Thanks again for all the help.

680: 522: 324: 2554: 2548: 2209: 1267: 1050: 1017: 984: 530: 493: 3030:

Response to relisting comment on requested move of K26LV-D to KNPN-LD

2958:. I should warn you, however, that the article may still be taken to 1604: 1148: 1002:

article until the situation was resolved." Thanks for catching this,

753:

Before any of that, you might start with some light reading such as

548:

No worries, thanks for taking an open-minded view about it. Cheers,

485:, but I must admit I can't find much in Melbourne's two big papers, 2504:

Thanks for the advice, will do those two things in future. Cheers,

1610:

Hi Jenks24. Need your footy books references for this VFA legend.--

2434: 2003:

Thanks guys, much appreciated. I'll try not to mess up too badly!

1338:. Not one of the 36 references in the article use the diacritic. 487: 290:

Sorry, but that doesn't look like a dispute I want to wade into.

2132: 2553:

Oops, my omission. Congrats on making it through to adminship.

1202:

linked, but in any case is not the case now since I have added

320: 2843:, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2827: 2788:, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2772: 1587:

Haha, thanks. Hope you can find an active admin soon. Cheers,

2438: 2045: