User talk:Jeni

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

An open message to those stalking my talk page.

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

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]

Reverted you on Franklin and Lincoln

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]

Cofton Hackett

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?

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]

my warning

Hi! Can we discuss my warning and me edits? I don't believe my edits are vandalism. I believe the edit has been taken over by a select group of editors that seem to have their hand in every article relating to Mormonism. I feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle here, but would like to work it out beyond silly little revert wars and the such. Thanks in advance --66.74.10.34 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note at the top of this talk page. I am ignoring this until you take note of what it says. Simples! Jeni ^(talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not reading everything. Maybe it's the annoying pink font. ;) --66.74.10.34 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]