Jump to content

User talk:Jenks24/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 29

Please re consider move of Saraiki dialect to Saraiki language

Discussions & Comments.

I'd also point to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Disputes policy.
Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English.
There is still a dispute going on regarding the identity and language of the Saraiki people. This dispute of having a separate identity and language and traditions has been going on since after the independence of Pakistan Reference History Pak . com
For Neutral point of view It is hard to make move. Fanalysis (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Self claim / claims is/ are not Neutral point of view.
If Mr. A claims himself as best doctor in New York city. Will we simply accept him as best doctor ? He can have degree of Doctorate as Verifiability of claim. But Best ? It could be disputed by B or C or D.
Some times simple logic answers complicated scenarios. Saraiki could not be titled as Saraiki Language. Fanalysis (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Old moves discussions.

Literature and independent sources review.

  • Sultan Bahu was a Sufi mystic, poet and scholar active mostly in the present-day siraiki speaking South Punjab province of Pakistan. His biography Divan of Bahu: English Translation with Persian Text written By Hadrat Sultan Bahu, Syed Ahmad Saeed quotes him speaking Saraiki dialect Divan Bahu
  • Background Notes on South Asia May 2011 by US department of State writes Saraiki is a Punjabi Variant. South Asia
  • Crossing Boundaries edited by Geeti Sen, Punjabi south western dialect Saraiki Crossing Boundaries
  • List of official, national and spoken languages of Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Saraiki is a Punjabi Variant. List
  • Studies in Pakistani culture: an international perspective by Saraiki is not a language.international perspective
  • The World Factbook 2014- 15, Books 2014-2015 by Central Intelligence Agency, United States Government Publications Office. Punjabi variant Saraiki factbook
  • India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 24 fourth dialect Saraiki. 24
  • Pakistan, a country study, American University (Washington, D.C.). Foreign Area Studies, United States. Dept. of the Army. There are three dialects, Saraiki is southern.American University
  • Outlook; a Journal of Opinion, Volume 3, Three dialects spoken in Punjab include Saraiki. Outlook
  • Unity in diversity: a vision for Pakistan by Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar Ferozsons Ltd 2005 , Hindko Pothwari Saraiki all are dialect of same language. Ferozsons Ltd
  • Routledge Handbook of Psychiatry in Asia by Dinesh Bhugra, Samson Tse, Roger Ng, Nori Takei Saraiki (A Punjabi variant) Handbook

NOTE; I have copied these links from previous discussions on this talk page. I am re-presenting them in easy readable format. Fanalysis (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Fanalysis (talk · contribs) is a sock of a banned user. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crawley (headmaster)

Hi, I not sure if you remember but you were a "keep" on this AfD in 2011. Crawley has continued to be a notable as an educationalist and has now retired as a Headmaster. This article in The Australian and this one about his Honorary Doctorate suggests that his notability is now above dispute. Is there a way of having this bio retrieved? I would appreciate your assistance. Castlemate (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Castlemate. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. Those are some great sources, I agree with your assessment that he is clearly notable. First step would be to ask the admin who closed the discussion as delete if they would consider undeleting in light of the new sources. If they decline or fail to reply (I see that admin is only partially active these days, a bit like myself unfortunately) then we can take it to WP:DRV. I think we would have a good case under criterion #3, "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Let me know if you need assistance with any of this. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried the admin with no luck. Castlemate (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started the DRV for you, Castlemate. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 24. Please feel free to vote there yourself, it's similar to AFD expect instead of voting keep or delete in this case you would start with "Allow recreation because yada yada yada". Hopefully we should see a result there in about a week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work so far on this issue. I don't know that I have the heart to become too involved as I find this sort of matter on Wikipedia so dispiriting. I can already see this notable bio being put up for AFD if it is recreated. For the moment I think I would be better off staying well away. Castlemate (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I understand your position, it can be demoralising. The layers of bureaucracy and so on probably don't help either and can be difficult to figure out even for people like me who, as an admin, should supposedly have some idea. Jenks24 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for involving you in this but appreciate your diligence to date. It is like pulling teeth. I can't imagine what will happen if Peter Crawley is restored if this is what is happening even now? Cheers Castlemate (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hah, no worries. Although it has been a slightly strange experience the article should be undeleted in the next day or so. Honestly I think this will be the hardest part, the people involved in the discussion all seem to be policy wonks not anyone with a particular interest (or disinterest) in Crawley. They will likely forget all about it once the discussion has been closed rather than starting a new AFD. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention Talk:J. T. Vallance but this seems to be another Australian independent headmaster/principle bio that was always worthwhile but was merged ill advisedly. His career since clearly required (and still requires) coverage.

Over and above having him de-merged and updating his record I wonder if the most important question is finding consensus regarding the general notability of these Australians. It is very frustrating having to discuss them at AfD with non-Australians who don't understand that a school with College as part of its name is not a tertiary institution but is K-12 school, that's Who's Who in Australia is not a vanity publication and that you can't buy an obituary in The Age/SMH. It would be good to have a policy that outlines the notability of these leaders in Australian education be they state or independent or a mix of both. I would appreciate your views on this. Castlemate (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Vallance as an individual case is easier because it won't need any admin tools. I agree he seems notable so I'd suggest just going for it and changing it back from a redirect to an article. It's highly unlikely anyone from 2005 is still watching that article and will disagree. On the more general issue, that's trickier. Ideally I think Wikipedia:Notability (academics) would be expanded to cover secondary school teachers, especially principals. But it seems to me unlikely that the people who seem to keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) would agree to that. My best suggestion for you would probably be to make a post at WP:AWNB and see if anyone has any suggestions – most Australian Wikipedians are well aware of these issues in AfD but I don't recall there ever being a concerted effort to try and do anything about it. That noticeboard is also handy to have on your watchlist because sometimes interesting issues come up there. Plus you can also leave notes there occasionally if you feel the need, e.g. "Article X is at AfD here, watchers of this noticeboard might be interested in giving their opinion" and voilà, you've got some more eyes on the discussion who might actually have some knowledge about the topic at hand (and you haven't violated our canvassing rules). Jenks24 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Tobias

Looks like we protect conflicted ;-) Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Hah, yes just saw that. Feel free to change it back to your time duration if you want. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Attacks

I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Some people make not have taken it that way. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's only a few weeks until The Ashes starts. TRM sent me a 'thanks' notification for it so I think he took it in the spirit it was meant. Jenks24 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
See my comment to TRM on my talk page. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your no consensus closure of First observation of gravitational waves move discussion

No consensus seems the correct summary of the naming criteria issues.

However, you did not address the questions regarding non-neutrality WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC. (The last comment on this issue was a bald denial that this was relevant, there was no response as you closed the discussion shortly afterwards.)

It is actually a matter of strong controversy whether to call the 2015-Sep-14 observation by LIGO "first observation", and of minor controversy whether to call it "first direct observation". If you need a RS to the existence of these controversies (well-known to astronomers) see Chapter 8 of Harry Collins Gravity's Kiss. He ends up summarizing the internal LIGO debate (2500 e-mails from 500 members) as being all over the map on this question. The reason not to call their observation "first" is because that honor perhaps belongs to Hulse-Taylor-Weisberg and their "indirect" observation some thirtysome years before.

Choosing sides on this issue strikes me as POV.

FYI, Collins was an "embedded" sociologist of science, with LIGO longer than almost everyone except the founders. His perspective is as informed and as neutral as is humanly possible. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, noted and I did read through your opinion at the time. It is perhaps worth pointing out your position did not pick up much (if any) traction with others in the discussion, including those who supported the move. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that matters. Neutrality is policy, and can't be ignored or overruled just because the participating editors are mostly unaware of the issue here.
As it is, I believe that most of the current editors on gravitational-wave articles are well-meaning amateurs, but simply don't know any of the nuances of the subject. I've been fixing quite a few howlers, more politely called OR in my edit summaries. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Because it is an interpretation of how that policy relates to the issue. Not a fact because you yourself note that there is debate about whether or not to call it "first". As to your second point here, Wikipedia is almost entirely written by well-meaning amateurs. It one of the great things about the site and also one of the worst things about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
But I don't see anyone "interpreting" the debate, just ignoring it because they don't know it exists, even when told it exists. If the very people involved with LIGO think it's a debate, we shouldn't take sides. My second point comment was neither praise nor criticism, just observing why the issue was ignored, not interpreted. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move review for First observation of gravitational waves

An editor has asked for a Move review of First observation of gravitational waves. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Thank you for your comments, but I think it needs fuller discussion. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No harm in further discussion, it's always interesting to see what uninvolved editors have to say about my closures. Jenks24 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

TNT (U.S._TV_network) Requested move 18 October 2017

I don't understand your approval of the move as it was not supported. All were opposed (Yes, I see you cobbled various options together). Second it was against WP:NC-BC. TNT is a cable channel not a broadcast network. A cable network is a group of cable channels. The cable example at NC-BC is "Viacom (corporation) owns Viacom Media Networks (division) which operates BET (network) which provides its flagship channel BET and sister channels such as BET Her and BET Gospel." Paralleling the example to TNT: Time-Warner owns Turner Broadcasting (unit) which operates the Turner network which provides its flagship channel TBS and sister channels TNT and Turner Classic Movies. So, TNT is not a network. Spshu (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a consensus that, whether we call it a network or a channel, disambiguation (in the form of "U.S.") was required. The only person who did support some form of country disambiguation, Dicklyon, did not give a reason why and hence I did not give his opinion much weight. On the subject of network vs channel, Netoholic made the argument that network is more appropriate per NC-BC, Dicklyon was also in favour of network (no reason given though), JE98 was ambivalent, and power~enwiki did not give a firm opinion on the topic. My reading of the discussion was therefore that there was a consensus to change from channel to network. However, you do make a reasonable argument in favour of channel (I wish it had been made during the RM) and I do not know whose reading of NC-BC is correct. I'd encourage you to open a new RM on the issue and we can see what the community decides. Jenks24 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oradour-sur-Glane

Hi Jenks24! I see that you have been changing the redirect page Oradour-sur-Glane. Redirects are common or alternative names for an article, eg USA redirects to United States. It's logical that an alternative name for a french village article redirects to the correct article. Your edit breaks a lot of incoming links, including in Oradour-sur-Glane massacre page. You can verify it on Special:WhatLinksHere/Oradour-sur-Glane. I hope this makes sense. If you have any questions, do feel free to ask. Happy editing! Givibidou (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Givibidou: Yes, as I said in my edit summary, you have broken those links by changing the redirect target. For a long time Oradour-sur-Glane has pointed to the article on the massacre and prior to that it was the title for the massacre article. Because of this people editing articles previous to the last 24 hours have linked to the massacre article by simply linking to "Oradour-sur-Glane". Please actually take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Oradour-sur-Glane – they are nearly all WWII-related articles and hence those links are meant for the massacre, not the article on the commune that was created afterwards. There are two solutions here: fix the incoming links or change the redirect back to where it has always been. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look and most of these articles point to the village, not the massacre. The Oradour massacre page pointed to itself with your edit, that's why I edited the redirect. Givibidou (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Givibidou: Really? Just taking a look through it from top down:
That's the first 10 links. I really am not that invested in where the redirect points, I only have this page on my watchlist because of a requested move discussion I closed there in 2015 (Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre#Requested move) where incidentally there was no consensus to have the redirect point to the commune article. What I am invested in is not having readers pointed to the wrong article. Please fix the links or undo your edit. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong : 1. Oradour-sur-Glane doesn't point to itself and is not in the list, you made up a fake list. The articles articles that point to the massacre have to be corrected, they are wrong, not the redirect page. Givibidou (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, the first in my list was a copy/paste error. It should have been Erwin Rommel (and no surprise it was referring to the massacre, too). Surely you could at least see that the next nine are the exact nine in order from your screenshot? Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "district" in South Ossetia-Alania

"raion" is translated as "district", except for the rural raions/districts in Ukraine. Where it is translated and even where not, the articles about individual entities are named "X District"/"X Raion" - except for South Ossetia-Alania. Also everywhere else -except India- it is "X Type" not "X type": Bochnia County, Masovian Voivodeship, Buenos Aires Province, Moscow Oblast, Washington County, Eastern Division (New South Wales), Cariboo Land District, ... 1 item out of 100000 not named with uppercase was proposed for renaming to keep the naming in enWP consistent. Even de-jure country it belongs to, Georgia, uses "X Type" for its municipalities. South Ossetia-Alania is not in India, so there is no precedent for applying the India exception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dzau_district&oldid=809879398 77.179.152.245 (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, not sure what this has to do with me though? Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox populated place listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Infobox populated place. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Infobox populated place redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisting RM

Hi.
Few minutes ago, I came around your few contributions while working at RM. I just wanted to know, what template are you using to relist? Your comment is not bold. I use {{subst:relisting}}. It produces a bold output. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not using any template actually, I just do it manually. I've been relisting RMs since before that template was created and I'm a bit set in my ways now. I probably should get around to using it, just in the name of consistency. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How to do it manually? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Type in the wikicode, e.g. I simply type in <small>''Relisted''. ~~~~</small> which produces: Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
To get the code that the template you mentioned produces you can type in <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ~~~~</small> and it will produce the same result as if you had subst'd {{Relisting}}. It's a bit more cumbersome to do it manually which is why I guess most people use the template. Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

IP reverts

I have seen three IPs doing this

User:Mr. Guye and User:Theinstantmatrix have also intervened. 80.171.244.112 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed there were a few of them. I'm not the greatest at the technical side of things, but I assume it must be someone on a proxy which I think rules out rangeblocks as a useful tool. Just keep playing whack a mole I suppose. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hussain Asif / Husein Saeed

Why was hussain asif and husein saeed two articles deleted.. This is ridiculous it took me 3 days to do it...

Please him ne get the pages back 🙏

(Ihussainasif786 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC))iHussainAsif

I can't add much more to Jimfbleak's detailed response to you at your talk page. I recommend reading that thoroughly and taking the excellent advice on board. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your help at the RM discussion of Duchess of Sutherland. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your self-revert on a user's message

Hello again. You removed but then reinserted a user's message in my talk page, saying it was a "misclick". May you please explain? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I accidentally bumped rollback as I was scrolling through my watchlist (your talk page is on my watchlist from messages I left there a few years ago). I noticed straight away what I'd done and reverted myself. See also Wikipedia:Rollback#Accidental use of rollback. Jenks24 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I wonder whether you will retain my talk page as part of your watchlists. I dug up your old messages by searching your username... Well, I don't feel like linking them or mentioning them. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have approx. 13,000 pages on my watchlist. There's plenty I should probably take off at some point (yours among them) but I haven't got around to doing it. Jenks24 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
And I thought my 3,000 watchlisted items was heaps. I've found it much easier to head over to Special:EditWatchlist for a cleanup. You'd be surprised how many redlinks appear after a while. -- Longhair\talk 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheers. I really should get around to doing this, as you say a lot of them are junk. Maybe while watching the cricket today... Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jenks24. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Buntine

Any thoughts on the AfD? You seem to have a better grasp on notability in these circumstances. I would appreciate your opinion. Castlemate (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a borderline one. The SMH obit is good but there's not a hell of a lot else. The problem is if I comment there now because of your request here people will say I've been canvassed. My suggestion, if it does get deleted (though this is not ideal for you): recreate as a redirect to either one of his notable parents and include a section on family which can have a few paragraphs on the son, Robert. Alternatively you could create an article on the grandfather from scratch (ADB entry = notability) and do the same thing. If you were doing that the deleting admin would probably be willing to userfy the article so you can take from it what you need. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Jenks24 (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. You are quite right and I think it is Buntine Family that might save the day. Castlemate (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As I'm already guilty of canvassing I suppose I might as well bury myself by crying on your shoulder about the current rash of AfDs targeting my bios. As is quite obvious my area of interest is a school and its alumni and staff. I have no commercial interest in the subject and even if my entries are of borderline notability they are not trivial or even controversial. I'm very tired of the attack by one suspicious contributor who has done this all before in 2007 under a different guise. What really distress me is the following that person has of two or three editors who seem to delight in tearing me down. In one case, where the subject is the head of another school, not unlike Peter Crawley (headmaster), it all comes down to this erroneous belief that a headmaster has no notibilty on Wikipedia. I haven't made it to John Vallance ex-SGS but I wish I had ... maybe he would have set a new standard. As for the hatred of mayors, public servants and Australian and Imperial honours I dispair. Sorry to bother you but I'm feeling battered, bruised and sorry for myself. Castlemate (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro

All reverted to status quo ante titles. And before someone complains that the old titles are ambiguous, maybe that it is a good for reason for actually going through a full RM process rather than making various requests at different pages. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=814512733#Comments_on_Russian_railways has subsections for comments re specific policies/guidelines. A user is moving them down into a more obscure place 77.179.100.51 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Moscow Metro

Formal request that you undo your vandalism.

Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) displays 

Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line))
Redirect page
Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro)
From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

For 20 h now users that follow the standard links are faced with this nonsense. 77.179.217.150 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Double redirect fixed (which you could have done yourself). Spare me with accusations of vandalism. Jenks24 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
How would you call it if knowingly Wikipedia is made worse than before? 77.180.88.54 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the mess you made and undeleted an article that was deleted because of a mistaken request you made at RM/TR. I would say Wikipedia is a lot better off. Jenks24 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Jenks24 - IP 77.180.88.54 made a mess? Where is the evidence for that? Go and restore the disambiguated title. 78.55.235.54 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No, for the reasons outlined previously. Start a RM, as has been explained to you countless times now. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24/Archive_24&oldid=1127699864"