User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/July

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

Trowbridge[edit]

I take it you've read this properly? Rodhull andemu 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have you? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. There is nothing in that policy section to justify removal without consensus, indeed, it states "the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."; well the images are already on Commons, since they are free of copyright, thanks to my generosity. However, {{Commonscat}} isn't that good, since images that appear there do so without context, as in the image of George Haden. So that link leads the user to a page of unhelpful content, since the images in that Commons category do not link back to Wikipedia articles. Neither do I see any attempt by you to revamp the gallery or integrate the images into the article, as suggested by WP:IG. If you're going to be that lazy, I would prefer you at least to place a notice on the Talk page of the article before taking such unilateral action. Finally, as a fellow-depressive, it helps if we work together rather than against each other, and fortunately, I am still alive (just), rather than taking such a minor spat too seriously, although to be honest, I have a lot of other shit to cope with right now, and that didn't help one jot. Happy Efexor!. Rodhull andemu 01:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text in junction tables[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if it was such a good idea to remove the bold text for the road numbers from motorway junction tables. In my opinion, having the road numbers in bold helped differentiate from the other words, making it look better. I know MOS:BOLD says don't overuse it, but it did help, and italics wouldn't have the same effect. What do you think? Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just doing these edits in response to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#This MoS is very US based. to bring the exit lists in line with the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't argue with policy, but I noticed some users on that discussion also agreed that the bold text made it easier to read. But having no bold text won't kill me, so never mind :) Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have no opinion either way, but if removing the bold text brings the exit lists within guidelines, it should stop some silly Americanised version being imposed on us. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you shadowing me?[edit]

No, I don't seriously think that you are. But it's an odd coincidence all the same. I have made two edits today (both without signing in – I am logged as 86.155.11.18), and immediately you made further changes to complement mine. Those edits were to Henry Stallard (I had just watched Chariots of Fire again, and felt it needed doing), and King's School, Worcester. Most odd. Especially given that they are both such specific-interest pages. BartBassist (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all (in that way). I noticed you had removed the refimprove template from King's School, and as a matter of habit, I always check the user to see if they have been removing more templates, as it happened you hadn't, but I noticed you mistakenly created a reflist as a level 3 heading, and just nipped in to correct it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was responsible for adding many of the recent tags on King's School. I have no objection to them being removed as long as they have served their purpose in drawing attention to areas that might need some attention. I have a particular interest in schools in Worcestershire but apart from copyediting, I don't have the resources to fill in any gaps. I do read articles thoroughly before tagging, hence the inline passives that have no citations. I did leave a message about this on the articles talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo 2[edit]

What do you mean Gizmondo 2 is unsourced? --AimalCool (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? Jenuk1985 ^(talk) 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 78[edit]

I actually like your revision best. Thanks! I'll try to see if I can get that updated with the rest of CASH when I have time. Mgillfr (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to please :) Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Data[edit]

The licensing sections were added because it woudl help people work out if certain sources were acceptable. WP:BOLD, but OK maybe this needs further disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcs project[edit]

Hi Jeni. I've created a project sub page where I am in the process of ordering the Worcs related articles by type, but the page isn't registering as a sub page. I may have done something wrong when I created it, but I can't figure out what. I wonder if you could take a look and fix it please at Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/by type Thanks, Chris.
--Kudpung (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working now? Aha, I see somebody has already stepped in to fix it!Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honeybourne[edit]

Actually, I think there was an edit conflict. Looks as if another editor was already improving the conversational tone, while I was working on a copy in my browser cache ;) --Kudpung (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all is sort of well now :) Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard Cathy[edit]

Hi! By coincidence, I stumbled about the issue at the Admin noticeboard (I'm just a normal user, not much experience), and weighed in. Her contribs show that Cathy is still playing the tagbot, and a bad one, to make it worse. And with her disregard for discussions, and for the need to have at least basic nknowledge about the orphan business, she has been disruptive in the past. I weighed in with those finds, maybe you want to take a look at that. On a bigger scale, after noting that it is not a required policy to link article in Wikipedia, I think this orphan tagging has run amok. Why pester people with a not required policy? You would have the same right to tag articles because of tags being in the wrong place, it's not required, too! Of course, that would be ridiculous, and you're too reasonable for thaqt, but still. What can be done to stop this tagging nonsense, or at least to improve it so that it doesn't confuse newbs, and doesn't result in stubs that consists mainly of tags? Any ideas? Gray62 (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there isn't a lot I can do, its up to the administrators at AN to decide on a course of action, if any. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Sadly, the admins don't seem to be too eager to weigh in. However, I'm thinking more about starting a discussion about the usefulness of "orphan" tags. If this is only recommended policy (just like the placing of tags, btw), should it be allowed to plaster tens of thousands with those tags? Don't our articles already look horrible enough with that hodgepodge of warnings popping up everywhere? What would be the right place to start a discussion about that, do you know? Gray62 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against maintenance tags as a whole, I use {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} quite often. What I am against is inappropriate tagging, and tagging in a non uniform way. Maintenance tags should always be in the same position, that way those that aren't bothered by them soon learn to ignore them. I'm not sure exactly where you would start such a discussion, but if I'm honest, I don't think you would have much chance of changing things in this situation, people are pretty set in their ways in this regard, however you are welcome to try! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But do you think it is correct to revert an editor's decision to remove a tag that only points to a "recommended" policy, if he thinks this is warranted? Or ven to start an edit war because of this, as if there is any Wiki policy that gives someone the RIGHT to place a tag wherever he/she wants? Imho there is a huge difference between tagging {{unreferenced}} and tagging {{orphan}}! Gray62 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if an {{orphan}} tag is correctly placed, on a page which it actually applies to, then there are no issues, after all, it is probably easier to introduce links to the article than it is to edit war over the tag. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cublington[edit]

I am removing it again. The whole article needs references, not just that part so I put the refimprove tag on it. I don't want people thinking that's the only part that needs references. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced phrase has been removed, please do not add unsourced content to wikipedia. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - the whole article needs sources, is there a reason why you won't address that point? I'm not sure why you think that one paragraph is so different. I'm not new and need no lectures from you. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the rest of the article is crap, doesn't mean that new additions needn't follow WP guidelines. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The rest of the article isn't crap, it needs more references. Hence why I put the reference tag on the WHOLE ARTICLE. Even if there were no tags, this isn't a BLP issue, so there's no need to remove the claim straight away. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries[edit]

Mantainence edit :) But thanks, even us long term editors forget things :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever[edit]

I greatly appreciate your "timne22 thinks he is exempt" comments on all the deletion nominations, and your comments in a dummy edit. You are quite the superior wikipedian; what you're doing really helps wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, its much appreciated! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't seem to follow your own rules. It is certainly not a courteous thing to go around WP and profess "this guy screwed up, but it's okay... look at how I fixed it! See how great I am!" I don't see how your disparaging remarks are beneficial to me or WP. They only make you look good, but they actually make you look like a jerk. Please keep this in mind as you make comments about future editors. It's not friendly. Timneu22 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that as "If somebody is trying to secretly delete pages, ignore it". Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does that mean? Timneu22 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem unwilling to provide the appropriate edit summary when nominating an article for deletion, the only assumption can be that you are trying to hide the fact you are nominating the article for deletion, so people don't notice on their watchlists. The AfD guide is pretty clear and not too difficult to follow. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should learn something about WP:AGF before you make such ridiculous assertions. I often nominate poor articles for deletion, and I'm right about 85% of the time. Sometimes maybe I fail to put an AFD tag. Big deal. The fact that you would accuse me of "hiding the fact yada yada" is just ludicrous. HAVE GOOD FAITH. Clearly, your posts did NOT assume good faith and they were ACCUSATIONS and examples of your POOR CONDUCT. None of these things is true. Ridiculous. Timneu22 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sale[edit]

Hi, I'm curious why did you undid my edit as your edit summary didn't explain. It's a format used in many FAs and doesn't clutter up the table of contents. Both are of course fine, but in this instance I think that when there are already 12 or 13 items in the table of contents there's no need to clutter it up Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its an unnecessary change and simply using the colon syntax does not distinguish section headings adequately. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern[edit]

Hi Jeni! I've done all I can to the Malvern, Worcestershire article. I think there's a fair chance that together the regular contributors could get it nominated for GA. (you've been down this road before). If you have time, please see Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Summary of recent edits, check out the article if you can, and leave any comments and suggestions there. If you see any obvious blunders, do go ahead and fix them. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dines Green[edit]

WikiThanks

Dead impressed by your speedy work on Dines Green. I posted that {{please see}} on WT:WORCS just before going out for a couple of hours in the hope of attracting some more enlightened comments on its AfD, but little suspecting I'd return home to find the article totally transformed. I think it took me longer than that to write and research my comment for the AfD! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) I've done all I can on the article now, but I've passed it over to the rescue guys to see if they can do any more. If I can get my scanner working I'll add an extract from my 1954 OS map, and possibly drive down tomorrow to get some better pictures. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Great work - again. Chzz ► 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)

Scott Jacobs[edit]

Re: [1], while users should use a proper edit summary when nominating an article for deletion, the language of yours was unnecessarily combative. Please try to be more neutral in future. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it had just wound me up a bit! I'll be more civil in future. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 15:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School infoboxes[edit]

Hi Jeni, I added an info box for the first time to a school page, Aston Fields Middle School, using the recommended tepmplate method. Could you please check that I have done this correctly. if you know a way of automating this, better still ;). Thanks. BTW, if you know of any other photos that need making in the county (irrespective of project), esp. around the Droitwich-Malvern-Worcestre-Upton-Pershore area, don't hesitate to give me a wish list. I will be at home in the UK in Malvern for a month soon and will have rather a lot of time to spare.--Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Chris.[reply]

Yeah that looks fine to me! :) As for photos I am slowly working my way through the village articles to find photos on Geograph for them, *most* are available. So far I have made it as far as Illey in Category:Villages in Worcestershire. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a script or a tool for quickly adding photos (and/or other stuff) to infoboxes? - because of my connection it takes me about 1/2 hr to manually add one by opening the edit page etc.--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not, though there is a script to upload photos from Geograph to Commons [2], though they still need to be added to articles. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is no no longer relevant to my talk page... take it to Talk:Southport where there is already a discussion. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

southport[edit]

please go back and look what i did.....i did not delete southport....i changed it to southport england and made southport the disamiguation page.....i will trust you will fix what you have done. ASSUME GOOD FAITH! WillC (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely blanked the page. Your move has now been undone, discuss controversial moves like that first. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fine, let's discuss....you go look at all the different places in the world named southport on the disambiguation page and then explain why wikipedia defaults to the city in england instead of the disambiguation page. that a page was blanked is not germaine to this conversation...the info was redirected/moved to a more logical place. WillC (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not an appropriate venue for the discussion, try Talk:Southport. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you realize it was a redirect page that was blanked? it was obsolete! WillC (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do realise it was a redirect, and it is still blanking. Perhaps you should read up on Wikipedia policies. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you reversed everything before i could clean it up per wikipedia policies. you jumped the gun and now you need to fix it. WillC (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) You blanked a redirect for no reason. b) you did a copy and paste move. c) you made a controversial move without starting a discussion. I already fixed it when I reverted your changes. If you want the page moved, go down the proper channels. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are avoiding the issue. you are acting provincial. WillC (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, Southport in England is by far the largest settlement with the same name, covered in more sources, is more widely known, and as a result it is likely that when someone enters "Southport" into the search box they're looking for the place in England. For the benefit of wikipedia's readers, WP:PRIME states "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article". Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i contest its primacy....i have never heard of the enlish town before today....i was looking up southport for southport, north carolina....which is a hotbed for filming american movies....you are not being geo-neutral. the proper thing to do is default "southport" to the disambiguation page. WillC (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southport, North Carolina has a population of 2,351, compared to the 99,456 inhabitants of Southport, UK. Nowhere near as important. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 22:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you are accusing others of "not being geo-neutral" as your argument seems to hinge on you having never heard of the place in England because you are from America. I can also say that I've never heard of Southport in Carolina, but that's irrelevant as the Southport in England is still more likely to be searched for. Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liverpool[edit]

Hi, hope this is the right place/page location/format to ask you a question. You reverted a ^{[citation needed]} tag removal I did a few minutes ago. I'm genuinely confused. The fact Hawthorne was consul to Liverpool seems (imho) to be verified on the Nathaniel Hawthorne page. Is it the dates specifically that you are asking for? If not, what? Also a genuine question from a relative greenhorn. Surely it is not necessary to cite the same facts over again in every article that may link to another article where they are cited? Perhaps you can concisely clear-up best practice for me and I might learn something. Thanks. RodCrosby (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same facts need to be cited in every article they are given (apart from the obvious things like "the sky is blue"). Simply "citing" another Wikipedia article is not enough, as Wikipedia itself is not classed as a reliable source. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp.... that is awesome, no-one has ever told me that before, and to be honest, it's so counter-intuitive that it appears to defeat the whole object of the WP exercise. I can't really get my head around it. Why bother with links at all? is one obvious question. Another is where do you draw the line? It seems fairly arbitrary to me. Kind of a minefield. One person's "sky is blue" is another's "except at night" if you get my drift... Make's me wonder about continuing with this. I only have the one life..... Thanks for the tip anyhow. I wish you could share some legal "loophole" with me. RodCrosby (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with links at all? -- They are there for navigation purposes, to help readers move around our website. They are not generally for citation. It can be a mindfield but I think you're doing pretty good work now. --Jza84 | Talk 10:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appletreewick[edit]

I edited the Appletreewick page, adding that the village is in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I believe you then deleted this contribution.

My addition was accurate. When the boundaries of the administrative counties of England were changed in 1974 the government made it very clear that the traditional counties had not been abolished. What had happened was that the traditional boundaries were no longer to be used for administrative purposes. Since the Local Government Act 1888 the traditional counties had been used for administrative purposes, but they were created between the ninth century and the twelfth century. The government was explicit on 1st April 1974 upon implementating of the Local Government Act 1972 when a Government Circular said:

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

(This circular is now fairly famous (at least amongst those of us who believe the counties should be recognised) and you can see it on the websites of the Association of British Counties (whose map of the British counties is widely used across the internet) the Yorkshire Ridings Society and the Friends of Real Lancashire.)

So, from 1st April 1974 to the present day, Appletreewick has been in the Craven District of North Yorkshire, for administrative purposes but it remained the West Riding of Yorkshire. Appletreewick has been in the West Riding of Yorkshire since Yorkshire was created in the ninth century by the Danes.

I did not delete the reference to Craven District or North Yorkshire. I merely inserted the fact that these are administrative areas, which is entirely accurate. The UK country is divided up into administrative units for the purposes of local government and many areas, including Appletreewick, fall under two tiers of local authority administration. This does not change the fact the country is also divided up into traditional counties, which have - but not always - been used for administration.

As a result of my changes, the reader was informed that Appletreewick is in the West Riding of Yorkshire and two levels of administrative area, Craven and North Yorkshire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidinwrofy (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me, I didn't revert your edit! Look at the page history. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will now revert your edits per WP:USECURRENTCOUNTIES. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriuosly[edit]

You must have nothing better to do with your time. Such a shame that you have to spend so much time and effort following me around. I guess that I should be flattered that you care so much what I do. Have to think about that. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burcot[edit]

I wonder why you felt it necessary to rename Burcot. Doing so makes it harder for readers to go straight to the page, and more work for editors to link to it. As there is apparently only one other instance, it should be quite adequate to use a hatnote between to two instances rather than a separate disambig page. Seems a pedantic and pointless exercise. At least you have had the decency to correct all the links, although that has the effect, of course, of hitting other people's watchlists!. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burcot, Oxfordshire is in no way the primary usage use of the term Burcot, so a move to Burcot, Oxfordshire is the most appropriate way to go. You'll notice that disambiguation occurs all over Wikipedia. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - disambig of two instances is generally deprecated and when there is no primary usage the one that got there first is usually considered as such. Motmit (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back this up with policy? My edits are backed up by this policy. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in, but Wiki is an encyclopedia and dab is not a race to see who gets an article in it first. As far as I can see, there are no references in (WP:DAB) for such a criteria. The readers are only concerned with finding the article they want with reative ease. Whether one settles for a hatnote on each article or a dab page (either will do the trick), both Burcots are small villages in counties in England and have equal standing, so there is no 'primary' topic, and whichever article gets found first there is always a risk of needing just one more mouse click to get the right one. From my own point of view as an encyclopedia consumer, I would prefer the dab page - but that's only based on my own way of searching for things.--Kudpung (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)[edit]

Sourcing and notability is not the problem. If you'd have read my "dodgy nom", you would have realised that the page has been nominated for deletion as it is a re-creation of content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. I'd appreciate it if you re-evaluated the situation. DJ 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you bought this to my talk page, the AfD is the most appropriate place for discussion. Nagging people to get people to change their !votes is seriously frowned upon. I will not be changing my !vote. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking DJ's helpful template off - saved me saying something sarcastic to him!! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editors like him have no place on Wikipedia. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle this with a vote[edit]

I've established a vote scenario here. I hope we can get the problem sorted quickly and easily this way. DJ 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't formed by voting. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE and a recent AfD[edit]

In the above linked AfD, you mentioned WP:SIZE. That page is referring to "readable prose". The article you commented on only has about 18kB or readable prose. I don't care about the article or the AfD at all, I just figured I might share some information. You might be interested in this script to assist in judging readable prose size.--Rockfang (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology requested[edit]

So asking someone that had an interest in a particular topic is Canvassing Now is it?

~~I expect an Apology.~~ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be getting one, you sent a message to someone who you knew was "on your side" in a debate. That's blatant canvassing. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you won't be interested to know that I'd actually asked Geniice into that discussion because I wanted his rather 'extreme' view challanged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were still canvassing, no matter what spin you try to put on it. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are missing the point. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but I am seeing your point of view on this. I've removed the message you claim is canvassing

now. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Rescue Proposal[edit]

On something else entirely,

What would your views be about having an Image Rescue project, whose goal would be based on available information, to try and bring suitable older image descriptions up to the standard for Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my kettle of fish I'm afraid. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong[edit]

You seem to be a good person. Please do what is right. You owe it to yourself. Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, doing my bit to ensure disruptive editors are removed from Wikipedia. Jeni ^(talk) 23:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your warning.[edit]

Merely a warning for me or did you look at the substantive issue?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the issue and you are being disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being disruptive??? I'm being disruptive??? are you for real! seriously are you for real? --Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JP Travel and Y Rhiw[edit]

Hi Jeni. Please see my comments at JP Travel concerning notability, and add a response if appropriate. Incidentally, I agree with you about Y Rhiw. When I redirected it into the Aberdaron article there was little there to justify an article in its own right. As you probably realised, whilst working on Aberdaron a lot of information specific to Y Rhiw was uncovered, so it was my intention in any case to hive off a fair bit back to Y Rhiw, as I will also do with Bardsey Island. You just beat me to it. Mind you, I didn't half curse you at the time as I was in the middle of a substantial edit, and before I could recover it from the edit conflict my computer crashed. Took ages to get it all back together again ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just whacked in a (rather generalised and looking at the bigger picture) comment on JP Travel, your opinion would be welcome. Apologies for jumping in the middle of your edits, didn't realise you were still editing. While it may seem like I'm stalking you, I am not, I have every English+Welsh settlement (and road and bus) article on my watchlist, and I generally step in and make edits as they appear on there, so to anyone that makes regular edits to such articles, its easy to get the impression of stalking! On the plus side, it means there is always something cropping up on my watchlist, always giving me something to do! Jeni ^(talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. Quite like the way you keep bumping into the same people though. Well, most of them most of the time! Skinsmoke (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harringay Green Lanes railway station[edit]

Thanks for adding the cn against the point about the Piccadilly Line tube. Hadn't noticed that before. It certainly needs challenging. Sounds like it could be tosh. hjuk (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For being awesome in fixing vandalism! RP459 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) Jeni ^(talk) 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]