User talk:HJensen

Hi there! Leave your message at the bottom, followed by a signature. I will reply on this talk page so as to maintain continuity in discussions. So, remember to watch this page — I won't notify you directly on your talk page. Finally, please be civil when leaving a message.

Excellent work!

I created an account - 5 minutes ago - purely so I could congratulate you on your excellent 'Zappa Legacy' page, which I've only just found, so I hope I'm doing the right thing here! . . . not only have you not copied my 'Natural Phenomena Named After Frank Zappa' site, like so many, but you've even found one I didn't know about (d*mmit!). I'm just adding a more detailed page about 'Amouratoma zappa' at the moment, and will now be requesting another 'Journal of Paleontology' from the local library. Keep up the good work! --Andymurkin (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andy!!!--HJensen, talk 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello...

It appears that everyone got sick of the conversation over at WP:Tennis, because in the 14 days since you announced you were pulling out, no-one's said anything. In fact I did much the same as you, and had already pulled out too. Thanks for the support anyway! rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for your efforts. It just got too much a waste of time imo.--HJensen, talk 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR

Hi HJensen, the Dylan FAR has now reached the front of the queue/line. SandyGeorgia suggested you might use your expertise. Any input or comments would be welcomed, thanks Mick gold (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'd like to award you a 'Peaches en Regalia' Barnstar. Mick gold (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Accepted with great pride! :-) --HJensen, talk 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Youre welcome. Looks like it's time to vote at Dylan FAR. Mick gold (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Some warning not understood, but misplaced under previous heading

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This one I honestly don't understand. Is it about the changes made on the Nadal article? They were all followed by detailed edit summaries, and some of them were reverted by a user applying profane language, and who is now blocked. I may have twice reverted back my meticulous delinking of dates and application of European date format. Hardly "edit warring". --HJensen, talk 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

About your changes at the Nadal article.

Well, I just hope you aren't a sponsor robot like Tennisexpert and atleast can understand that, if you want to change the dates and another thing: do it. Don't turn on the sponsored names again.

By the way, why are you taking out the GS and MS tables? Maybe Nadal's article is special? The others can have it? And it's not repeatitive info, it's just clearing the big trophys on the career.

Korlzor (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't give me orders. The GS and MS tables are repetitive info. Everything is in the wins and runner-ups table; why have it twice? There is nothing special about the Nadal article. I have just learned that on tennis articles it is useless to have discussions about general issues as there are always some that want THEIR particular way. Just as you apparently intend to, and act according to: cf. diff here. So I tried out the edit on the Nadal article.--HJensen, talk 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

dates

Please let me know whether you'd like to install the script that semi-automatically removes date autoformatting and other trivial links. You seem to be doing good work, but manually. Tony (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider it, thanks! However, it seems that in the instances where I do it manually, a fingerful of other editor seem to agree with the edit, compared to the situation where the edit is done by others through a script. Peculiar MO. :-) --HJensen, talk 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here