User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/September

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

WP:AN notice[edit]

[1] Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*yawns* Trying to be disruptive again I see? Jeni ^(talk) 00:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Kidderminster_College_logo.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Kidderminster_College_logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this by the way. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was on my todo list! :) Jeni ^(talk) 18:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norton canes.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Norton canes.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopwood Motorway services[edit]

Are you aware that someone has AfD'd this article - along with all 54 other Wikipedia articles on motorway services? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations
BTW, I arrived in Europe last week and will be staying in Malvern till the end of the month. If you would like to meet up for a coffee somewhere in the county, do let me know.--Kudpung (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)(Chris)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, it looks like an American with absolutely know knowledge of the subject making incorrect comparisons... nothing new there! Jeni ^(talk) 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An open message to those stalking my talk page.[edit]

I know there are a few of you stalking my talk page for the correct reasons, I'd like to thank you for that, your input is very much appreciated and its really nice to have a second or third opinion on my actions and comments. Please, continue to do so! :) I also know that there is at least one person stalking this page for disruptive reasons, again, please continue to do so, your true colours will soon show through!

Following on from that, I would like to make an open apology for the way I act in regards to some of the comments I make, which may seem rather snappy. I always try to get straight to the point, and avoid "pussyfooting around the truth", often this can be taken the wrong way. It is a flaw in my personality which I am actively trying to iron out. That is another reason why I appreciate you guys/girls (I don't think there are any other girls stalking this, but you never know!) stalking this page, you help to alert me to my imperfections and indirectly show me how I need to improve.

I would also like to apologise to those who I don't see eye to eye with (yes Ottava, this includes you). The above point about my personality flaw applies to this too, I don't always make my points in the best way, while in many cases they are perfectly valid points, they are undermined by the way in which I make them, again I am working on this. This doesn't mean I am going to start agreeing with you, it just means I'm trying to formulate my statements better.

Events over the past couple of weeks have really started to put me off editing on Wikipedia, hence I have been largely inactive on the editing front, just keeping an eye on my watchlist and making changes / participating in discussion as appropriate. I do have big plans for some articles, and I hope that I do get that motivation back soon. So, as a message to those that are trying to bring me down, you are currently winning, but you won't win, I'm too strong for that. Quit while you are ahead.

If you aren't stalking this page, and you would like to, please do! I always like extra input into what I do, and as mentioned above, it is much appreciated. Anyway, I just felt that the above needed stating to clear up a few things! Happy editing! Jeni ^(talk) 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across this randomly and to be honest I'm not surprised. In the past you have nominated against me in 38 separate AfDs, each time criticising my actions as a nominator, and have continually opposed my suggestions on article talk pages; even going as far to suggest that I have used sock puppets to strengthen consensus. Following on from this, you are unwilling to compromise in disputes about articles and adopt an unconstructive "my way or the highway" attitude. You say that you've changed your ways regarding name-calling, yet 4 minutes before you posted this you called me "pathetic" for not agreeing with you. I did not realise that other editors had the same problems with you and now that I do it gives me peace of mind. All these other editors can't be wrong; notice that the common denominator in all of these disputes is you. I hope you take this criticism constructively and build upon it to improve your Wiki career. Regards, Dale 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As I said, true colours will come through. Jeni ^(talk) 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cofton[edit]

Hi- sorry for creating waves on the Cofton page, I wasn't aware of that extensive policy document, and probably I should have made some kind of better effort to have found it before alering the page. I feel like the additional changes made however have returned things to a better situation than before I had a go at editing- let me know if you disagree, before say - reverting the whole lot to how it was this morning. Cheers. Leonig Mig (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cofton Hackett[edit]

In view of, but not only of, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pigsonthewing_3, I felt I had to add my 2 cents at Talk:Cofton Hackett. There seems to be a lot of bad blood going around recently - maybe it's due to this year's lousy English summer. --Kudpung (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire meeting?[edit]

Worcestershire Project get-together
I'm in the UK on a rare trip to my home town in Worcestershire. If all or anyone from the project would like to meet up, please let me know. I'll be returning to Asia on 3 October.--Kudpung (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted you on Franklin and Lincoln[edit]

It is not America-centric to have Lincoln and Franklin in the leads first (Though keep in mind that there are over 5x as many English speakers in America as in England). Both Abe and Ben have many many more hits than anything else with Lincoln or Franklin in the title (Abe has 300K/month, Ben Franklin 125K/month, Lincolnshire 15K/month, and Franklin class a mere 300). Also, on Lincoln, it was clear that while a few users such as yourself wanted to downplay the role of these core biographies, there are some, and reasonably so, that just want Lincoln redirected to Abe. My happy medium was a fair compromise between those groups, which is why I will fight anyone from either side who attempts to undo it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for your edits, if you continue to make them it is considered to be disruptive. I notice you have a history of edit warring, this may lead to you being blocked. Jeni ^(talk) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, at least on Lincoln. JimWae and I agree in Talk:Lincoln#Happy Medium that it's perfectly fine to have Lincoln in the lead. And remember that several others want Lincoln to just redirect. You should use the talk page to discuss an edit like that. You accuse me of America-centrism, when you yourself are an Anglo-centrist. Also, that's a threat. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people agreeing is not consensus, perhaps you should read up on what consensus is before using that word again. Jeni ^(talk) 02:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have consensus either, because there is none. Did you read our clearly defined rationale for doing what we did? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself "there is none". Point proven. Generate a consensus for the change, inform all appropriate parties, then the edit may stand. Currently you are POV pushing with no consensus, and that is labeled as disruptive. You won't generate consensus on my talk page, so I suggest you take it to the appropriate talk pages. Jeni ^(talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus or stated reason on the talk page for yours either anymore than there is for the redirect straight to Abe that several have advocated. How is advocating for a core biography with a quarter million hits a month POV-pushing? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD: You made a bold edit, it was reverted, now you discuss it. (Hint: The articles talk page is a good place for this! :-) ) As far as I am concerned, this discussion on this talk page is over, it is not the appropriate place. Jeni ^(talk) 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Franklin, do you have any problem with applying the Lincoln consensus to the Franklin page? It's essentially the same problem: too-long lead, one came first, but another has way way more hits. Based on the current Lincoln consensus, the Franklin lead would look like this:

Franklin often refers to:

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father of the United States
Franklin (class), a defunct British social class

That OK with you? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

After having the time to sleep on my decision, I woke up to an inbox full of mail! Thanks to everyone for the supportive emails, they mean a lot to me! I will take your advice and not completely retire, but I am stepping back to a certain degree, for the near future at least. Jeni ^(talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification[edit]

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

Can you please stop harassing me for goodness sake?I thought we are done with the issue regarding you disliking my race?Please please stop spamming my mailbox with those hate messages.Jamiebijania (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but who are you?! Jeni ^(talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I?You woman.Jamiebijania (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also stop harassing me[edit]

Please can you stop reverting my factual edits to the Great Dunmow page and replacing them with your imaginary roads. Are you a resident of dunmow, are you connected in any way? I think I am in a better position to know the road network of the area. 79.72.178.35 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are vandalism and will continue to be reverted. Jeni ^(talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Great Dunmow. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M1 motorway, requested move[edit]

I see on your requested move application for the M1 motorway you only informed the UK project, here[2]. There are many more countries with an M1 motorway. Should you not have informed their projects too? That standard would apply to the M2 Motorway request. Thanks. Tfz 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to inform other WikiProjects if you wish. Jeni ^(talk) 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should do that, as you initiated it, thanks anyway:) Tfz 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Abuse of process' I'd call that. Little more than canvassing votes. And WP:CANVAS suggests such action is against policy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read the policies you cite ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M2 dab[edit]

Please stop edit warring on this page. Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow wikipedia policies as outlined in the warning template you received. Jeni ^(talk) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing my page. Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to be disruptive in this way you will continue to be warned, just like any other disruptive editor. Ultimately it will result in you being blocked if you continue. Jeni ^(talk) 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sarah, the WP:CSD policy page states "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it". You may add the hangon template, but you were wrong to remove the template. Nev1 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has sorted the problem now (yet she still continues to edit war over her preferred arrangement on the page itself ;-) Some people will never change I guess!) Jeni ^(talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tut[edit]

Tut tut, [3]. Sheesh! Tfz 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to this message? MickMacNee is a great editor who I have a lot of respect for. It is a shame that your cabal is so intent on bringing him down. Jeni ^(talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block Mick, there is nobody trying to bring him down. That's a makie uppy if ever I heard one. You are trying to stir trouble between Mick and myself. I'm afraid your efforts will be in vain. ANI had little time for your complaints, and indeed keeping those articles to UK roads could be seen as disruption. You sure backed down when the Americans came in, but I expected that. Tfz 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I backed down when the American's came in? You just need to ask WP:USRD and they'll tell you how difficult it is to get me to back down! Jeni ^(talk) 00:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I might report you to ANI for trying to stir trouble between Mick and myself. There is agreement there, and he or I don't need this. Mark my words on this, I take it quite seriously. Tfz 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, while your at it, report everyone else on there who supported Mick. Jeni ^(talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, Mick was unblocked in the hope of restoring calm. We seem to have got that calm, so please just let's get past this episode. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blind reverting[edit]

Jeni, stop blind-reverting.

In this edit, you repeated AlisonW's mistake of undisambiguating links.

Blind reverting without checking the effects or the edit history is highly disruptive. Before your edit, the links took the reader to the appropriate articles. Now they don't, so please restore my version, which worked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With your edits its difficult to dissect which edits are constructive and which are (verging on) vandalism. If you would continue to make only constructive edits, it would be much easier. Jeni ^(talk) 19:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie? Or Ignorant?[edit]

Hi, I hadn't you down as a newbie, so maybe it's just ignorance on your part. Have a read of WP:DTTR next time you want to trot out some made-up policy infraction on my Talk page. I'm well aware of your recent run-ins with Sarah, but returning a comment on a Talk page by an editor whose comments Sarah has consistently removed is just joining in the trolling. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm reading that, why don't you take a read of WP:TTR, both of which are only essays. Jeni ^(talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M50 motorway[edit]

Jeni, your reversion of my edit to M50 motorway was based on two mistaken assumptions: a) that "Republic of Ireland" is the name of the country, and b) that the dab page must reflect the name of the country not the island .

I see no policy or guideline requiring "b", and "a" is a highly contentious subject on which a long-standing compromise has been reached that the 26-county state called Ireland need be referred to as "Republic of Ireland" only where there is ambiguity. Since there is only one M50 in the island of Ireland, there is no ambiguity, and hence no need to say "Republic of Ireland".

Please note that this issue has been contentious for years, and that a massive arbcom-sanctioned collaboration exercise has been underway for most of this year to review the situation: see WP:IECOLL. Sarah777 and I are usually on completely different sides of the arguments there, but a sensitive compromise has been reached on use of "Republic of Ireland", which Sarah is applking correctly to the dab page at M50 motorway. Please stop interfering until you have informed yourself better about these issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Jeni. You have new messages at BigDunc's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

BigDunc 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries[edit]

Jeni, please assume good faith. Your are quite entitled to revert an edit you disagree with, as you did here, but the fact that you disagree with someone does not make them disruptive.

You have throwing this label around a lot recently, as well as calling for blocks of those you disagree with. This doesn't help, and there would be a much greater chance of resolving differences if you would cut out the drama.

Also, please quit stalking me. You have a history of blind-reverting my edits, and it's geting tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"cut out the drama", that is rich coming from someone who shouts "admin abuse" at frequent intervals! If you think I'm stalking you, read #4 in the "Why are you here" section on this talk page. Jeni ^(talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I don't "shouts "admin abuse" at frequent intervals" ... only in regard to AlisonW's and Thryduulf's actions on motorways. If you think that a partisan admin move-warring to suit his preference, protecting a page to gain advantage, and issuing block threats to an editor with whom he has move-warred isn't admin abuse, then you really need to check up a bit on the role of an admin and note Thryduulf's own apology for his actions. Why are you still backing Thryduulf when he doesn't even back himself?

Your claim to be watching British Isles would be a little more plausible if you gad ever actually edited either that page or its talk page. I have checked, and you haven't -- so quit stalking, and quit abusing edit summaries apply to falsely apply a "disruptive" tag to editors you disagree with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

You'll find that I haven't edited most of the pages on my watchlist, otherwise my edit count would be at least double! Jeni ^(talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be more credible if you didn't have a history of blind-reverting my edits.

And you still haven't explained why you are still backing Thryduulf when he doesn't even back himself? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Revert Discuss[edit]

To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [4]. Thanks,Black Kite 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh place names in England[edit]

Rather than carrying on reverting the IP(s), there's now a discussion at WP:England about the use of Welsh placenames in English articles - as you seem to have taken over from Gwen in reverting the removals, you may want to comment there, and hopefully we can get a consensus one way or another. (My personal view is that, while a case can be made for towns right on the border or where the Welsh name is in significant use, there's no more justification for adding a Welsh translation to Ross-on-Wye, for instance, then there is to have "Manchester (Bengali ম্যানচেস্টার)" – there are considerably more Bengali speakers in Manchester than Welsh speakers in Herefordshire.) – iride scent 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]