User talk:Jenova20/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

January 2011

Jenova20, it is simply YOUR opinion that those stories are 'biased', it is NOT fact. The Administrators have said you cannot add that material to the article as it is inappropriate. Please just drop it, you have no evidence of your ridiculous claims, it has no place in the article. For once please just listen to reason. Christian1985 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTE; Jenova20, you cannot put material like this on here, it is libellous against the Daily Mail. These statements are NOT facts they are YOUR opinions. You cannot go around making false claims like this, you could find yourself being sued for libel, just a warning. Christian1985 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was on there while i was planning something to add to the Daily Mail article. I figured if i was planning it on the Talk page of the Daily Mail you would attack it, instead you appear to be stalking me to attack it here.

I am NOT 'stalking' you don't be so ridiculous and offensive. No I would not attack it, grow up, but anyhow you can't add it to the article because it is simply your opinions. You are being very childish and abusive toward me and there is no need for it. Don't you dare accuse me of 'stalking', that is very offensive. Christian1985 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How are they not facts when the Daily Mail sources alone are proof that they are a personal attack on the Preddys and an attempt to discredit them? That is libellious as in the same way making you out to be a nazi would be, the only difference is that i would have proof of the first. Jenova20 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The DM sources don't prove anything that you are claiming. You are simply putting your own biased spin on them. They are NOT facts. 90.214.245.119 (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article first surfaces, Daily Mail takes the side of hotel owners. Columnist writes article asking which of the two is really being persecuted. Daily Mail article claims the hotel owners risk losing the hotel, which is a lie as their legal bills and fine were paid in donations before the article was wrote, yet no mention of this. The Preddys having now won the case are made to be skinhead nazis with swastika and 666 tattoos in a sarcastic, very controvertial and anti semitic cartoon.

Which part of that is biased from me? It's clear that the Daily Mail are indeed homophobic and tried to discredit the Preddys after they won their discrimination case. Jenova20 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The DM is not 'homophobic' or 'anti-semitic', those are just YOUR opinions. That cartoon is a harmless cartoon. Just because you clearly don't like it, doesn't mean it is wrong or 'homophobic'. You are about the only one who sees it as 'controverisal'. I find it sarcastic at worst. That is just your opinion. You can't go around making such opinionated claims against the Mail because your views are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1985 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your views are biased to protecting the Daily Mail from any criticism and your talk page is proof, many people have accused you of such and you clearly have a personal interest in this article. "That cartoon is a harmless cartoon" is a useless point again showing that you will defend the Mail from anything they do, whether racist, anti semitic or homophobic. Jenova20 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking me on other threads, I am not here to be bullied and harassed. I am NOT claiming 'ownership' of the Daily Mail article. I am not monitoring the page and stopping any negative information from being posted. I am following WP guidelines by scrutinising sources. You have not produced any edits backed by reputable sources, The Pink Paper is not a reliable source, it is biased and partisan. I have done nothing wrong so please stop making these ridiculous accusations about me or I will take action. Christian1985 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"and stopping any negative information" Exactly, you shouldn't be doing that, if there's negative information then it should be added to the article, but you won't allow anyone to even suggest that. And quit with the threats to me, i've already reported you. Jenova20 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You have misread my post; I am not stopping negative information, I have not stopped anyone from posting anything. I have simply stopped nonsense from unreliable sources from being included in the article. This is simply following WP policy, I have done nothing wrong so why do you keep picking on me? Christian1985 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS; You have not reported me, I know you haven't so don't try and threaten me. I have done nothing wrong so please stop picking on me. An independent editor has even said there is nothing wrong with the DM article. Please just leave it. Christian1985 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The independent editor also said you seemed to have a personal interest in this, which becomes apparent when you take to stalking other contributors talk pages to defend the Daily Mail. Jenova20 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No they didn't, they were referring to Collect. I am NOT 'stalking' you, don't be so childish. If you post on a talk page it is visible to all WP users, it is not your private space. I have done nothing wrong and I am NOT 'stalking' anyone. Now apologise for that remark, you are out of order making such claims, grow up. Christian1985 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't apologise for it, you can grow up and stop being so childish yourself and i have no interest in whether you get offended from me calling you biased or not. The easiest solution is for you to stop being biased. Jenova20 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't repeat my comments, that too is very childish. I am offended because you are making some ridiculous and false allegations saying I am 'stalking' you. No I am not, your talk page is open to all and I am perfectly entitled to write on it. I am not being biased, I am stopping the article from being polluted with biased nonsense. I will defend the Mail because they have done nothing wrong. They are NOT 'racist' or 'homophobic' just because you say so, it is just YOUR opinion not a fact. My talk page proves nothing, those editors had a hate campaign against me simply because I stopped them from posting tripe on the article, like you are trying to do. I have done absolutely nothing wrong so I will await your apology for accusing me. Also don't threaten me with the Administrators, I know you never reported me, that too is childish. The Administrators know I have done no wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian1985 grow up and go bother someone who cares. Jenova20 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be so rude and abusive, you are the one who needs to grow up. All I am doing is presenting facts, yet I have been bullied and attacked by you. You owe me an apology for accusing me of 'stalking' you and other false claims you have made against me. I have done nothing wrong. An apology will suffice. Christian1985 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you better get a chair because you'll be waiting a long time. Jenova20 (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so rude and nasty to me, I have done nothing wrong? Christian1985 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we disagree. Jenova20 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Adminstrators themselves have said I have done nothing wrong. I have made a complaint against you because you are being very rude and very unreasonable when I have done nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we disagree what reasonable is aswell. Jenova20 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

INTERJECTION Hi both. I'm going to stick my nose in where it's not wanted, and since you're both actively writing here, I thought it might as well be here. Do you fancy both taking a step back and having a cup of tea? Cool down. You are both stomping all over WP:CIVIL and look like you are racing to WP:NPA.

Jenova, I've seen what you've written and I don't disagree with most of it, but that doesn't make it appropriate for wikipedia or the article. If you can find some reliable sources giving critique of the Daily Mail, and write it up in a neutral way (ie not as an attack), I would support putting the information into the article. However, you cannot assume that any homophobia is obvious and just point at a cartoon and say "Look! Look! Homophobia!", as that does not work with the verifiability of wikipedia. I hope you can see that.

Christian, my advice to you is to not take things so personally. Asking for an apology on wikipedia is like trying sneeze with your eyes open, it's very unlikely to happen and if it does it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Hopefully, you'll both see that there is an easier route forward Worm 12:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Worm. I gave up trying to add anything to the article yesterday morning, sadly am still being hounded on my talk page a day later because Christian insists on an apology for his treatment towards me and others who dared try and suggest anything be added to the article. As you've probably noticed i can't even be bothered to write long winded explanations anymore as this dispute is eating into too much of my time and i have better things to do. Jenova20 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go again Jenova20, being rude and abusive. I am NOT 'hounding' you. I am perfectly entitled to read and write on your talk page. Stop being so childish. I have not treated you wrongly at all, I have done nothing wrong. I deserve an apology because you have been very rude and abusive to me when I have done nothing wrong. Please apologise. Christian1985 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i think i've forgot to do that on a few other occasions. Jenova20 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion regarding this page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. l'aquatique[talk] 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Q on ANI

Hi Jenova. I saw you were asking how to get to User:Jenova20/dm easily. Well, there's a few options here, all depending on how much you use sub pages. If you're not planning to use them much, well, I've just provided you with a nice link! Otherwise, I'd suggest doing what I do, and having a link somewhere on your userpage to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jenova20/. Have a snoop around my userpage if you like, see if you like how I've done things. I shamelessly pinched it from User:VictorianMutant, adapting it for my liking and would happily help you out setting something up for yourself. There are also a few wikipedians who can help you design a userpage afresh, I'll dig up some names if you like. Worm 09:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, my biggest problem at the moment is trying to get my signature small in enough to fit in the box. Other than that my talk page is fairly low priority as i'm researching a few subjects. Thanks for the link! =] Jenova20 (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

your sig

I'm not a big fan of that many colours, but have a look at User:Worm That Turned/Sig Test#Jenova... Worm 11:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have updated. Try now :) Worm 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Try this

• <span style="background:#000">[[User:Jenova20|'''<font color="red">J</font><font color="orange">e</font><font color="#FF0">n</font><font color="#0F0">o</font><font color="cyan">v</font><font color="#F0F">a</font>''']]</span>[[User talk:Jenova20|'''20''']]

should resolve to Jenova20 - Worm 11:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's working =] Thanks a lot Worm Jenova20 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

re: is this right?

Well, I certainly wouldn't say it was wrong. The talk page is specifically to discuss ways to improve the article, not for questions regarding the subject. I wouldn't take it as any sort of slight if I were you, I think User:Bmclaughlin9 was just trying to nip any debate ("chat") in the bud, so the talk page wouldn't fill up with it. There are a heck of a lot of outlets for such chat online and in future, so in future as an alternative to removing the comment perhaps you could suggest one of them or one of Wikipedia's reference desks where questions can be answered. The idea is to keep talk pages focused on the article not the article's subject. See more at WP:NOTFORUM Worm 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" I read that whole thing and i can't see any reason there for this to be removed. He asked a question about the article and i answered it, it was all about improving the article as i even pointed out in my answer. I don't see that either of us broke a rule there so what should i do? Thanks Jenova20 14:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the very next sentence said "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article", and the way I read it, his question was clearly regarding the subject. Your response addressed his question whilst mentioning the article, but did not make any suggestion of how to improve it. It did look like it was just a general discussion about the subject. If you are planning to improve the article and would like that conversation on the talk page, I would suggest you leave User:Bmclaughlin9 a message, explaining the situation to him. You can replace the conversation (no one will bite your head off if you only do it once, see WP:BRD, it's the way things are meant to work) but I do recommend discussing it first, as it encourages collaborative editing. You are allowed to edit the article anyway if you see away to improve it, so I'm not sure of the benefit of replacing the conversation. Worm 14:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i'll agree there. I work easier though by leaving that kind of thing on the article talk page rather than mine as it's generally easier to find and easier for others to work with. And i still need that section as now i have to keep looking in the link i sent you rather than the talk page, which means i can't add to it and can't work on more than one thing at once. thanks Jenova20 16:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be prepared to argue on pinknews being a reliable source, they are going to be biased - and editors may dismiss their comments out of hand. On the upside, it is someone else commenting on the Daily Mail, not your personal opinion and that does show you're looking for the right sort of thing. Make sure you are familiar with (WP:RS) and keep me in the loop! Cheers Worm 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the first paragraph doesn't rule it out, and the biased part is only because the Daily Mail is always being condemned for what they have done there and that's because of the Mail always doing controversial things, not being just biased against them. Secondly "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." These authors do more journalistic work on these subjects than the Mail by actually interviewing both parties.

I can't specifically see anything that rules them out as a source, it's not a blog, it's a news site as the BBC that is updated often (at least once a day) and is generally informative on only gay related news. I therefore don't think it should be ruled out just for being a minority news source as that wouldn't make them biased in the same way a BNP or National Front newspaper or online blog would clearly be.

What do you think? Thanks Jenova20 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jenova. Sorry it too me so long to reply, I've been a little under the weather for a few days. All better now though :) I'm not disparaging pink news, I was just suggesting that to use it as a source, there is a change you will have to explain why it is reliable, as you often must on Wikipedia. The fact that it is one of the top 10 sites for LGB issues in 2010 should stand in your favour, but their bias is clear from their editorial policy. I'm curious to know what makes you think that a Nationalist newspaper, who's views are likely to be diametrically opposite to yours, are more biased? Worm^TT 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a fair question. At first it was just irritating that they could keep putting out stories with misleading titles and a homophobic undertone. Now it's happening every week though. Would you say it's normal for a national newspaper to have at least 2 sites dedicated to pointing out their flawed journalism? At the end of the day what the Mail does is stir hatred and misreport the facts, whereas the Pink News state they are pro gay, that might be a bias, but it's not one that will cause controversy or result in personal attacks on religious institutions or figures. They only report, and have both sides to an argument, the Mail doesn't, it has more reason for a better headline to attract readers from rivals, again something the Pink News cannot and won't do.

Thanks, hope you're feeling better Jenova20 09:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the big problem with bias. I read a wise comment on WP:ANI a few weeks ago about "opinion" which is equivalent to bias. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and everyone elses stinks. You will always see less bias in views that are similar to your own. On homosexuality, there are people out there who believe that it is un-natural and wrong.

Now, right and wrong are all based on the society we live in, for example in slavery is considered wrong, but a couple of hundred years ago there was no issue with it at all. I certainly wouldn't consider people who kept slaves evil.

You might be wondering why I'm going off on a tangent here, that this has nothing to do with the Daily Mail. Well, I'm trying to get you to see the world from a different point of view. This is the important thing about Wikipedia's Neutrality. If we write about slavery, we don't want to say "Slavery is treating people as possesions thereby violating their fundamental human rights" We want to say, "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work", not making any judgement at all.

As to your question, "Do I think that it is normal for a national newspaper to have sites dedicated to pointing out flawed journalism" then, yes I do. For example, BBC, who I consider the least biased news source, yet - ([1]), ([2]), ([3]) - Criticism of the BBC. Worm^TT 10:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedias stance on homosexuality is neutral in the same way racism and ethnicity would be? I can see why they would be classed as bias, but do not believe it would be treated on Wikipedia the same way a "black news" or "asian news" source would be here. I see your point though, but can you clarify that for me as you have more understanding of this and probably a lot more experience? Thanks Jenova20 10:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. Have a look at WP:Five Pillars, which explains exactly what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. Anything that is written in Wikipedia should be found in neutral, third party sources - allowing wikipedia to be a starting point for anyone who is interested in a subject, rather than an end point. As such, sources which show clear bias may be challenged. Worm^TT 10:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Does that also rule out the Mail as a source in some cases as they publicly support Conservatives? Say in an article with Labour bashing? And this would rule out any article created solely to point out flaws in just one newspaper but not one that points them out in all UK newspapers? Thanks Jenova20 11:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on the circumstances but when using a newspaper as a source, it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and so it is not automatically reliable. I would hope that we don't have any "bashing" articles, though. If a subject is notable, then there should be an article on it, and I think that Homosexuality in media may be a possible article to think about... of course, the more focused the subject, the less notable it becomes, so Homosexuality in the press is less notable, Homosexuality in the Daily Mail is less notable still, and Homosexuality in the Daily Mail on 19 November 2010 is very unlikely to be notable at all. Worm^TT 11:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, check out WP:ANI#Christina Aguilera, Super Bowl XLV and The Star-Spangled Banner for how the Daily Mail is considered as a reliable source on wikipedia. I think you might be pleasantly surprised Worm^TT 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Very amusing =] I suppose i can take comfort in knowing the Daily Mail has such a bad reputation they will never recover from. And in gay circles, it's pretty much a fact that the Daily Fail is homophobic and trying to rub off its own influence on people with misrepresented facts and incorrect headlines. I'll call the source hunt to an end, it's took too much time and effort and still only got a couple bits of useful information and sources. Anything you want off that page before i remove it? Go ahead. Thanks a lot for the advice Jenova20 15:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'd suggest you just blank the page with a comment along the lines of "Ended hunt for sources for now". That way, you can always access it if you need it by looking in the history. Good luck with future editing, let me know if you ever get stuck again Worm^TT 15:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the help Worm. Jenova20 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lavender Scare

I deleted chatter that was not substantive from the Lavender Scare talk page. It was not a discussion of the wikipedia entry, which is what the talk page is for. The guy with questions like does the color orange have any gay meaning should find an appropriate blog and post his query there.

Good luck if you decide to work on the Lavender Scare entry. It's quite poor at present. I've been adding a few sources and entries under "see also" to help if anyone decides to work on it. I've been working on related things, like bios of 2 of the more important people who lost their jobs: Carmel Offie and Charles W. Thayer. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The part about the colour orange was pretty useless but his other question and my answer spelt out exactly what i needed and how to add to the article. This could go on all day but it doesn't change the fact that it caused me more work to add to the article now than it would have if the talk page was left unchanged. Jenova20 09:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination

On your thing about general discrimination on the discrimination portal sexuality is already there under Sexualism. But you can help me please if you will add to my "Discrimination againist people with HIV/AIDS" page. I'm looking for people to help me. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also they are trying to delete all of the categories on forms of discrimination. Please put in something to defend it. Check it out by going to the category Homophobia, Antisemitism or any other one and check that it does not get deleted. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added to Homophobia and Discrimination talk pages. Thanks for the heads-up, will keep an eye open there. Jenova20 09:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail Online

Your edit on Mail Online was identified as vandalism and has been reverted. Please do not add POV and Original Research to Wikipedia articles. The 'reference' does not prove the claims you are making. It is simply YOUR opinion which is POV/OR. The 'reference' does not support your claims. You are falsely trying to claim the DM is 'censoring' their website. All you are doing is twisting the reference into your own words. Please do not revert it again as you may be in breach of the 3 revert rule (3RR), thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The content and the way you are both behaving. Jenova, per the latter half of the conversation User Talk:Worm That Turned#Homophobia in the media, take the content discussion to the talk page. Christian, per your talk page, that edit was not vandalism, please assume good faith. Worm^TT 15:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Worm, I shall assume good faith, but I stand by my statement, the 'reference' does not support the claims and is still OR. I would happily discuss the matter on the Talk Page. Christian1985 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll step back here and let the content discussion take place, but I'll keep an eye on what's going on. Worm^TT 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Jenova. I would be happy to adopt you, I nearly suggested it back in our first encounter but decided against suggesting it unsolicited. I would have to warn you though that being adopted by me does not necessarily mean I will take your side, you've already seen that I'm willing to call you on work I'm not happy with. Also, at least to start with, I would expect you to stay away from your hotspots - topics related to homophobia and the media. I wouldn't have a problem with you working on your article in your userspace, but I feel that getting you up to speed as end editor would be essential prior to working on the more contentious topics. I'm currently working on an adoption centre, which will include a few lessons and tests, and I'll be keeping an eye on your edits and talking to you about any possible areas for improvement whilst you are under adoption. Would you be happy with being subjected to all of the above? Worm^TT 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, agreed completely. I don't really edit full time anyway, just when i see something that interests me or i want to research. How does that leave the current Mail Online addition anyway? Thanks Jenova20 11:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Consider yourself adopted, I'll stick a userbox in your list if you don't mind. I'm hoping to finish my adoption school by the end of the week, so I'll get back to you soon with my thoughts. For the time being, feel free to keep editing, but steer clear of homophobia and media related articles, saving Mail Online, until that issue is resolved - and even that if you're happy for me to finish off. Worm^TT 11:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well i personally feel as though Christian may be affiliated with the Mail as he has hounded a few others on their talk pages for trying to edit them and he takes it as a personal attack. So as long as you fight back and your edit points out that they do/can edit articles then i'll be fine with it. I stick to that from principal because this is an encyclopedia and that's clearly useful information for this. Other than that i agree 100% and look forward to my first lesson =] Thanks Jenova20 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, I will discuss this with you later in the week, once I've got my adoption school up and running. I'm going to create a module around how to handle disputes and what to do with you feel that an editor is not something they appear to be. If you would be so good as to put the train of thought on hold, I'd really appreciate it. The Mail Online discussion is over (as far as I can see), so not matter what happens next on the talk page, I'm going to ask you to not respond there. Worm^TT 12:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've got some spare time...

Hi Jenova. As a suggestion, to get you away from the Mail stuff for a bit - why don't you have a look at WP:BACKLOG. Wikipedia currently has a lot of stuff to clean up and could really do with some help doing it. I don't expect you to be able to clear any of the backlogs but every little helps, so even if you can only do one or two things that would be really helpful. Have a look at the different categories, see if any of them take your fancy, then drill down to find out what to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Worm^TT 14:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks a bit complicated for me as i'm dyslexic, hence the gradual learning of everything at snail pace so i can remember it. At best i can take a look but i expect to read them about 15 times before i can even figure out what i'm doing as i'd prefer to do it properly. Thanks Jenova20 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure we'll find something for you to do but perhaps cleanup isn't best suited to your talents. Worm^TT 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to explain but basically i can learn it over time. I just take a little longer with that kinda thing. Thanks for helping with the article and the argument, it would have dragged on a lot longer otherwise like all the others relating to the two articles. I'll take a stab at the cleanup but being a perfectionist probably won't be a good thing in this instance. Thanks Jenova20 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I have a beginnings of an adoption HQ! Feel free to come and have a look, at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, and your personal area at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20Worm^TT 23:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've substituted the first lesson across to User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20, so that you can work on it as you like. I'm glad you've read through it, but make sure you check your understanding with the links included, let me know if you're happy. When you're ready, I'll stick some questions in so that I know you're thinking in line with the community. There's no rush on this, I was expecting a module a week because I'd say that the mentorship should take 2-3 months.Worm^TT 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Don't mean to come across as a page stalker, I was just checking through how you were getting on with your adoption (Your answers are very often much more considered and well thought out than my own, and help me understand the answers better), and I noted your comments about my answer to the vandalism bit. Thank you for educating me more on the topic of the rainbow flag! I'm not the most well versed in matters of Pride, probably because of my deviant hetrosexuality :p but it cheers me up that a silly comment has made me a bit smarter and more understanding

And in terms of the templates headache, it is an evil topic. The best way I found of getting round it is to just keep toying with it until it does something interesting! I hope that helps. Bennydigital (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot =]

I was reading your answers too and you're better at writing them out like a Wikipedia expert, i'm still learning.

You overtook really fast because i'm stuck on the complicated subjects and i'm now playing catchup to you, which is helping actually because i can understand your answers.

And pride is just a party nowadays for the community, not a rally, so everyone's welcome.

I don't expect to see you there but i'm going to Birmingham pride as always at the end of may.

Everyone knows the civil right movement and black history but gay history can't be taught in schools because you get religious nutters attacking it as some kind of recruitment, which is shameful as we have a very rich and peaceful history.

Sorry for the rant =] Jenova20 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates and the like

Hi Jenova. Hope all's well with you. I've been a little busy for the past few days, so sorry if I haven't been around to help out. I had a look at your new page User:Jenova20/Car Articles, and the table within. It looks like a very good table, did you create it yourself or has it been used elsewhere on the encyclopedia? It's not actually a template at the moment, but it could make a good one.

The essential property about a template is that it can be called from another page using curly braces {{ }}. You can also pass in parameters, which will affect how the template is displayed. Any page could be a template, but most commonly used ones are held in the "Template" space of wikipedia. You've used them yourself, all the Userboxes you've got on your user page are templates - if you wanted to edit them you could go to say Template:User en and edit it to see the code. Indeed the infobox that you use to store the userboxes is also a template, Template:User infobox!

I think that if your table isn't already a template, I think it might make a very good one for car articles, and if we can get you into templates - you should try to create it :D (I'd be happy to help, of course) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well i meant the use of the word template as in the real meaning and not the code meaning Wikipedia uses.

As in a framework for something to work from.

As with the user boxes it's mostly copy and paste with modification.

The table originally had a different order and less columns before i modified and stored a copy.

If we made it a template like you suggest would i still be able to change the information inside it?

Thanks Jenova20 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you would. We could set it up so that depending on what parameters were passed in, the table would show certain lines and you could add new lines ones as and when you need. Do you happen to have a link to the one you grabbed? Worm^TT · (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean a link to the original table?

Thanks Jenova20 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

SEAT Alhambra

So it was just in the article like that. Ok, that's worth knowing :) I'm sure we can create a template similar ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly like that as you can see from the article history.

That's after a little modification and a bit more added on.

After that i kept a copy for future articles.

Thanks Jenova20 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting there! Finally (and I mean finally, I've been meaning to do it for ages, just not got round to it) I've created the copyright for beginners module. Hopefully, it explains things better, have a look an see if it makes any more sense :) I'm going to see if I can do a template one next. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, i've been reading BennyDigital's answers aswell, they've helped me understand a little. I'll have a look-see =] Jenova20 14:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The template one should be done in an hour too :D I'm on a roll today! Worm^TT · (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant =]

There's no rush but thanks for that Jenova20 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

May not have been any rush, but I was on a roll :D I do that, I get myself in a mood to do something, and then I do it. So, I'm hoping the beginners module helps to clarify things. If not, let me know, Worm^TT · (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I attempted the test again but i don't get question 8.

Can you also tell me if i get a question wrong but not tell me why so i can look into it better?

Thanks Jenova20 16:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page

Have you considered archiving your talk page? It's getting quite long. There are two bots that do it for you automatically - should you want to go down that route. Firstly there's MiszaBot and secondly Cluebot. Both will move any threads with comments over a certain age to an archive, keeping your page nice and clean and tidy. I'm sure you've seen that mine doesn't have any older than 2 weeks - I user Misza for that :) Worm^TT · (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How do i do that?

I'd like to keep them for a month if that's possible to do?

Thanks Jenova20 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Very possible. Would you like me to set it up for you? It's a one off thing then will check every day. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and would you like incremental archives for each month or would you like incremental archives that go up when they are full. I prefer the latter - if you have a quiet month, you don't really want an archive with 1 item in it. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

When they're full would be great thanks.

Jenova20 12:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. It might take up to 48 hours for the first archive to happen, as the bot runs once per day, and I'm not sure if it's past J yet. Feel free to change the note at the top of the page. - You will always have a minimum of 3 threads, no threads with comments newer than 31 days will be archived. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool =]

Thanks for that, thumbs up!

Jenova20 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Entering "Adolf Hitler" and "Osama Bin Laden" as recent signatories on an online petition from an unreliable source is completely unacceptable. Lionel (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jenova. I've been looking into this, and I'm afraid I agree with Lionel. The source is a primary source, something that I didn't really cover in my adoption class, and I'll be updating it to sort that out. Wikipedia does have a relevant policy at WP:PRIMARY which you may want to look at. The thrust of the argument is that primary sources are generally too close to the event and therefore shouldn't be considered reliable (or at least easy to misuse). If a source with proper editorial control reported on the survey, that would be a much better source - so the tag that Lionel put on there was appropriate.

I'm not sure what value the sentence is really achieving either, I'd remove it if I were working on the article. Do you have any idea how many stupid petitions are created every day? With no coverage, you're giving it more weight than other sources - and THAT means you are doing original research. Well done on bringing stuff to the talk page though and not getting into a revert war, though I think that is partially due to the fact that Lionel has been patient here. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about mentioning the two signatures there but felt that change.org was the right source for that moment and to call it an unreliable source would be wrong since any other source would be copying that page and the link would show the exact and updated amount of signatures and also any other news sources that had mentioned the petition.

Jenova20 08:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose your point about misuse of sources seems fair, it makes sense that they could be manipulated.

I posted a (rather long) defense on Lionel's talk page that pretty much sums up both sides of this without leaving large parts out like his.

Thanks Jenova20 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The defense you left on my talk page caused me to take another look at the edit and your talkpage. I have not "gone completely overboard," in fact, you got off easy: the warning should've been a level 2 vandalism warning.

1. Do not ever introduce blatantly false content in an article. It is extremely detrimental to the encyclopedia. This goes way beyond primary sources. Adolf Hitler did not sign an online petition. No matter what the source. It is a lie. And you knew it to be a lie. Your "bit of fun" excuse doesn't hold water. The sentence containing Adolf Hitler was not prefaced by anything that would alert the reader that something humorous was to follow, there was no context alluding that this was "in good humor." Adolf Hitler was not even in quotes! The sentence was written straight, matter-of-factly. The "fun" edit sum didn't fool anyone.
2. There was a previous incident where you were accused of vandalism, ironically nazi-related. A number of editors objected to your behavior. This is the second time you have added inappropriate material. If it happens again I would not be surprised if the matter reaches ANI.Lionel (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionel. I'm afraid I'm going to have to put a few points straight here. Firstly, a level 2 warning would be more appropriate, since a level 1 warning states "Welcome to Wikipedia", something that is inappropriate in this instance. I mentioned this on your talk page. Vandalism however, is inappropriate, as the edits were clearly made in good faith. To accuse someone of vandalism is assuming bad faith - which is fine for a one off editor who is clearly trying to damage the encyclopedia, but is not true in this case.

1. Jenova was fully aware that Adolf Hitler did not sign the petition, as would be ANY reader. The name WAS in quotes, please double check[4], it did not need any further qualifier. Using confrontational language such as "It was a lie" is exactly the kind of unpleasantness I would not expect to see from a long term editor.
2. The previous incident was not nazi related, though it was homophobia related. In that incident, another editor went overboard with accusations of vandalism, a claim which he took back. I am well aware of which editors objected to Jenova's behaviour and I feel that he has improved significantly since that incident. For example, he brought the changes to the talk page. That follows bold, revert, discuss - I do not see any of his actions required a warning whatsoever.

I left Jenova a message about primary sources and why they were an issue. His reaction? Find a better source. I'm happy with the Register as a source. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to push this to the administrational assistance and get this looked over by someone higher up.

What do you think Worm?

Thanks Jenova20 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's over-reacting - I'm hoping my comment to Lionel should explain the matter. I should have explained to you by the way that administrators aren't actually "higher up" on wikipedia. They have the power to actually do the block, but that doesn't mean their voice counts for anything more than anyone elses. If you remember the Dispute Resolution lesson we ran through - going to the administrators is NOT the next step anyway ;) Feel free to have another look over the module, see if you want to go to another step, but if you'd like my advice - I'd suggest we wait and see what Lionel says. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well i've got him in the orange section of your diagram, is that what you have?

Thanks Jenova20 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wellllll that's a tough one. The conversation does appear to be the bottom half of the triangle - though I should warn you that unconstructively accusing someone of sitting in the lower parts of the triange is in fact a bit lower half of the triangle ;) Confusing isn't it? As I've said many times, you will come across people who disagree with you and can come across as abrasive - how you handle the situation shows you to be a good editor and a good human being :D Worm^TT · (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems ironic that someone accusing someone else of vandalism can behave in such a thuggish way, same tactic i got from Christian before, only this time i was able to get a better source without your help Worm =]

Thanks for being a great teacher i suppose Jenova20 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, I got sucked into a meeting. There are many tactics people use to get their own way in life as well as in wikipedia. The areas you have found difficulties are areas which have polar opposite views and strong feelings. Very often the editors will not even be aware of these feelings, but they will see edits to the contrary as plain wrong. Now, when opinions are so polarised, it's very difficult to see the other person's point of view and therefore hard to assume good faith. Once you stop assuming good faith, you see bad faith edits - vandalism. And the behaviour you see as thuggish, that's understandable for vandals - if you see someone adding vandalism to an article over and over and over, strongarming is often the only solution. But don't worry, we'll tackle that topic soon enough. In fact - it's the next topic, once you've finished Templates ;) By the way, let me know if you'd like me to set up archiving for you. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Worm I must say you have done an excellent job of mentoring Jenova but he still does not appear to have addressed his attitude problems. Above here he refers to me as 'thuggish'. I find this claim very offensive and very insulting. That is your problem Jenova, you will never accept when you are wrong and you do come across as very abrasive. I read your altercations with Lionel. If you want to make a good editor you really need to sort your attitude out. And before you have a go at me, I mean this as a constructive comment. Christian1985 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian, I may have done a good job, but I believe the credit lies with Jenova. I'm amazed at the progression he has exhibited, and I await his comment here with interest. By the way, I read "thuggish" as aggressive and intimidating - something I don't see as unreasonable. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree there, he has made progress but still lacks the right attitude in my opinion. I did not behave 'thuggishly' I feel Jenova acted very aggressively toward me accusing me of 'stalking' and constantly attacking me saying I am 'sanitising' articles and such like, there is no need to go hurling accusations like that and he was wrong but refuses to admit he was wrong, that is where I feel the problem lies. But keep up the good work. Christian1985 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well don't you think it's strange that you still watch my talk page so often if it wasn't stalking?

I haven't checked your page since the end of our discussion in february but you clearly still check mine at least once a day to have noticed that comment.

Haven't been editing as much since work hours changed Worm, also o2 is messing me around repairing my smartphone so can't do this on the weekend while i'm away.

Thanks everyone, sorry bout the wait for replies

Jenova20 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason i thought there were more people awaiting a reply there, i think i counted Lionel for some reason. Anyhow that's sorted now. Christian, just because you think i was wrong, doesn't make it so, so without getting drawn into an argument again, maybe you should reread the last argument because i have no intention of contributing to another and with how busy i am i doubt i would be able to. And if you really look into it, the last time i tried to add a comment i did so with the support of another editor, so if i waas wrong then me and worm both were. And he didn't have to resort to thd tactics you did, for example: trying to find hidden messages in statements to discredit my work by making out i believe something different from what i wrote. Jenova20 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There you go you're at it again. I make a constructive comment and all you do is start being rude and start accusing me again. Why do you have to be so nasty? I did not used any 'tactics' to discredit the nonsense you were trying to publish, I did not try and find hidden messages, that is complete nonsense and proves my point, you will not accept you are wrong so you start hurling ridiculous accusations at me. Your edits were your opinions, Worm has told you that also. I do not come on your talk page everyday but you are still making offensive comments about me when I do come on. I am perfectly entitled to read your talk page or contributions, it is public domain, Wikipedia is not private you need to understand that. It does not mean I am 'stalking' you and I find it very insulting you keep make that ridiculous and offensive comment. As I have said to WormTT, your knowledge of WP rules has drastically improved but your attitude sadly hasn't as you have just proved. You will never make a good editor until you sort your attitude out. Christian1985 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your constructive comment as you put it just slated me for having a bad attitude.

The "nonsense" i was trying to publish was a matter of fact pointed out in the terms of the Mail Online site and was supported by another editor Christian.

Only you see it as nonsense because you protect the site from criticism to such an extent that you even take your silly crusade to others talk pages as is clear from your talk page history.

You have been accused of numerous things by others and class any edit you don't approve of as vandalism (which is most).

And frankly your constant appearance here constitutes harassment and looks like some strange obsession you have with me.

Thanks Jenova20 08:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jenova, it does appear I am actually stalking you. As a relatively impartial observer I have to say to both you and Christian- Let it drop for goodness sake. You disagreed on something, and both said things that I'm sure you both have the common decency to be a little embarrassed about. As such, I think that you are going to have trouble in dealing with one another in a civil manner far a fair while yet.

As such, here is my productive solution. Stop bloody talking to each other for a while. It doesn't make either of you look like good editors, and it serves no purpose whatsoever. Jenova isn't going to get the banhammer, as a promising editor who has made one or two mistakes, and Christian isn't ever going to agree with your position on matters political or Wikipedian.

And if either of you start doing that 'He started it' nonsense, so help me God I will draw ascii penises on your userpages* Benny Digital ^Speakage 08:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

* The final comment there is a joke. Benny Digital does not endorse phallic vandalism of any kind, and any crude representations of genitalia on your respective userpages probably isn't him. Probably...

I'd like very much for that Bennydigital =] (the first part i mean).

Thanks Jenova20 08:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)