User talk:Jeni/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:30, 23 March 2009

Informal ways to contact me

IRC

If you want an informal chat with me, I can be found on the Freenode IRC network in the following channels: #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-roads, #jenspace. If you need any help connecting to IRC, drop me a message below and I'll assist where I can! Once connected, either send me a private message, or say my nickame (Jeni) to get my attention. I am also on AfterNET.

Windows Live Messenger

Feel free to add me to WLM, my ID is jenuk1985@googlemail.com but please when adding me specify who you are otherwise I may not accept!

Why are you here?

Archives

You are hacked off because I nominated one of your articles for deletion - This isn't the place to discuss it, I strongly suggest taking it up in the appropriate AfD discussion or on the articles talk page.
You are replying to a message I left on your talk page - Don't reply here! Reply on your talk page, I'll be watching!
You want to discuss an article - If it is an article I have previously contributed to, it is likely to be on my watchlist, consider starting a discussion there instead, it may generate more discussion from outside parties.
You actually wish to talk to me - Welcome! You are in the right place, start a new discussion at the bottom of the page!

The talk page

Moragn Trent

No, the page does not meet the criteria for a speedy delete.--Yankees10 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the tag is inappropriate, use the hangon template as described and give your reasoning. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldnt have to do that and waste my time, the article defenitely meets criteria--Yankees10 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP policy. End of Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not complaining about putting the tag on, im complaining about you putting the tag on the article, when it clearly doesnt meet the criteria for speedy deletion.--Yankees10 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. " - seems to fit the bill to me. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability he does. The article definitely indicates the importance of the subject, it says a top prospect for the 2009 NFL Draft.

"Wikipedia Notability states, "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them are considered notable."

For the college football project, consensus interprets this to include players that:

went on to play in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)
went on to be a head coach in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)
were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame
won major national awards such as the Heisman Trophy, Outland Trophy, Wuerffel Trophy, Doak Walker Award, or other similar trophy
completed a special noteworthy play or achievement
otherwise achieve notability outside of college football." Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows its significance by saying a top prospect for the 2009 NFL Draft.--Yankees10 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Still doesn't establish notability. Not to mention an unsourced comment. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced? There is a source on the page--Yankees10 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake, but still not a notable player Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is, just because you dont know about him, does not mean he is not notable, there are tons of other articles about players about to be drafted in this years draft that have not been touched--Yankees10 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they haven't been noticed yet then. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its because most users know these dont fit the criteria--Yankees10 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" is not a speedy deletion criterion. Please read criterion A7 closely. "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability ... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance ... ." Under WP:ATHLETE, any player who plays in the NFL is considered inherently notable, and so it's a reasonable inference that any player who is going to be in the NFL should at least not be speedied. Whether or not the article should be deleted is a question for a different process, but I would advise against it since the article is going to be created next month after the draft anyway - deleting it now is a pointless waste of time. --B (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I have sent the article to AfD, so its up to the wider community to now decide. "The article is going to be created soon anyway" is not a valid argument to keep an article really. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "the article is going to be created soon anyway" not a valid reason not to delete something? If there were some question as to the appropriateness of the article in a month, I'd agree. In other words, if he were a possible 7th round pick, ok, delete it, but there's no way he isn't going to be picked, considered inherently notable, and an article will be created at that time. --B (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then create it at that time! What is the issue? Its a similar situation to music single articles, they get deleted until a time when they chart, and most of the time its almost certain that they will chart, but they still get deleted until that time. If you have issues with WP procedures, I am not the person to take it up with! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why do you care so much about Morgan Trent so much so you must have it deleted?--Giants27 ^T/C 22:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "care", but he is not notable enough to have an article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serangoon Ave Pages

Hi,i have marked the pages as a stub and i do not get why you have to put the pages up for speedy deletions.Cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of musical recordings

Hi Jenuk1985. I have removed your speedy deletion tag from "My Mummy's Dead". You tagged it under A9, but this song is by John Lennon - certainly not an artist "whose article has never existed or has been deleted"! Hope that helps for future speedy tagging. Regards, Somno (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrebus

Hi, sorry to bother you but could you look at Centrebus leicester for me and see if we need it because it is just a duplication of the main article and I don't how to nominate it for deletion. Also, could you please create a standardised table for the main article for the bus routes. Thanks. Msalmon (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a candidate to merge into the main article. I will attempt to do it a bit later :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, just thought id let u know Msalmon (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done, you may want to attempt to fill in some of the gaps though! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bed now, but I will fill the rest of it in tomorrow (8 Mar) unless someone has already done it MSalmon (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

You write on your main page:

Where an article is notable, I will defend that notability down to the ground, where an article is not notable, I will nominate for its deletion. Simple!

Unfortunately it is not that simple. Judgment of notability requires expertise. Do you consider yourself an expert in all the subjects where you propose deletion? I only comment because I believe you have made some unhelpful calls. I would say it is better to improve articles on notable subjects rather than try to have them deleted (e.g., by adding tags such as {{refimprove}}, etc.). Of course, you may well disagree, as is your prerogative. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by every call I have made for deletion. If an article turns out to be notable, then that will show in the deletion discussion (which is why there is a discussion in the first place) Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses

Yes, any bold merge or merge discussion would be fine. I only didn't close it as merge because there was no obvious merge target. Black Kite 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I'll set about that later tonight. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stewiewispa

Just to let u know that Stewiewispa is the same as user Snleicester who was blocked because he replied on my talk page MSalmon (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nights routes

I have started to merge all the night routes of London and the page is called Night buses in London and I wanted to know what do you think of it.C.bonnick (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have finished playing, and I'll have a play myself, I have a few ideas I feel could greatly improve the layout. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice infobox but where is the Ibus symbol.C.bonnick (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work, the iBus information is still there, just not displayed, I will add it a bit later. That's the standard UK Bus Route infobox, no reason why it can't be used in London with a few modifications which I'm making. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Hi,i did reposted the article serangoon ave 2 but i did not delete any speedy deletion tags!Please explain,cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to turn into a "yes you did".. "no I didnt"... "yes you did" argument, so for that reason this will be my only reply on my subject. As the article is now deleted (and as I understand it, protected), the history is not available, but if you didn't remove the speedy tags, you wouldn't have received the warning. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a personal attack and i DID NOT delete the deletion templates on serangoon ave 2.And fyi,you cannot put an only warning template if there are no other warnings.Jamiebijania (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken appropriate action and I will enter into no further correspondence on this matter. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard 68

"If I have made an edit which you do not agree with, please just drop a note on my talk page, we are all adults after all!" Would you please let me know why you have repeatedly removed a section from the above article despite requests to discuss the matter. ciao Rotational (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide diffs to prove I have "repeatedly" removed a section? I have made a single edit to the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - please let me know why you have removed a section from the above article despite a clear request to discuss the matter instead of removing. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a direct copy of information from Dark nebula, a link to that article, rather than duplicating information is much more preferable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in Dark nebula was taken from Barnard 68 by Debresser - go speak to him about it and check the history rather than accusing me of copying ciao Rotational (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, can you provide information to suggest I have accused you? Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a direct copy of information from Dark nebula makes the implication quite clear, or did you remove the copy from Dark nebula as well? Rotational (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no accusation that you have done anything there. Please remember to be civil. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is obvious. You make it extremely difficult to be civil. Rotational (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such implication there. I am ending this discussion unless you have anything relevant to say. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right - I don't think this is the place for a constructive discussion Rotational (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: aserty

Hi, Another editor had already removed a csd tag. A prod tag has also been removed. I moved it to afd so a discussion and final determination can take place, and so another csd tag was redundant. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, are you removing the CSD tag for the sole reason that an AfD is in progress or do you disagree with the reason behind the CSD tag? If you don't disagree with the reason behind it, I'd kindly ask that you re-add it, it is not unreasonable to as for speedy deletion of an article that is already in an AfD discussion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing directly to do with the afd. Another editor had previously removed a csd G1. I agree that it is not nonsense. The subject is clear and so a G1 doesn't apply. A csd tag is not normally added again once it has been removed. Taroaldo (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor removed the csd tag as he/she didn't agree with that reason. I feel that A1 is much more appropriate for this article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is clearly identified. According to the page creator "aserty" means rude, etc. I think the page should be deleted as well, but I disagree that it is a candidate for a speedy delete. Someone's trying out a weak WP:NEO and it will fail, but it should be discussed at afd. Taroaldo (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox London Bus

Hello! May I ask you as to your reasons for changing the format of Template:Infobox London Bus? The London articles are separate and I don't see why they need to be made the same as the UK ones, especially when they were good anyway. It is a matter of taste, but personally, I don't think they are an improvement, or have any real benefits over the old one. The iBus logo clashes with the background, and the specific sections are now in one long jumbled list.

The main problem is that you have changed the image setting, but it doesn't actually work, leaving mess either side of the image. I see you've fixed the problem on route 371, but that still leaved hundreds looking like this! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that consistency is the key these issues, and there is no logical reason why London should be considered "separate". The infobox, as with everything is constantly evolving, and it may be a good idea to take parts of the old London infoboxes and incorporate them into the UK one, such as the sectioning, which I will now go and implement. This way the same sectioning will filter down to the non-london articles to further bring consistency. For me, I don't feel the ibus logo has a place on an encyclopaedia, but I'm not about to kick up a fuss about it, as its a very marginal case! Relegating it down into the body of the infobox may be a better solution, again I will look into that. I can bodge an image2 parameter to catch broken images and display them correctly! I shall get to work now! Thanks for your comments and input. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits I have made now should address your concerns, except for the ibus logo, which I just need to recreate with a transparent background. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excellent! That looks much better - less like it has been done for the sake of it. The image parameter is a problem as all of the picture has been dones in the old way. Would it be worth making the text on the iBus logo white? Saying that, I think it will be right to "kick up a fuss" at some point, as, seeing that every route will eventually have it will be pointless when they're all done. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find my installation discs to install Fireworks at the moment, so I can't edit the image myself, but I've asked around on IRC to see if someone can have a crack at it, just waiting for someone in particular to come online now :) In the mean time I have uploaded a new version of the file that should do the job in the short term (MS paint job, not amazing, but possibly slightly better than what was there before for the short term). I don't like to be controversial, but you have probably noticed that consistency is a very big thing for me. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, consistency is important. The iBus icon job looks perfectly fine to me. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo changed to white with transparent background. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009

What do you think about new infoboxes for routes 84, 614, ELC and ELW. C.bonnick (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Motorway service areas

Thanks for this. If you want any assistance with your MSA work, I'll be happy to help. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I should be thanking you for creating that article :) It had been on my todo list for a while now, but my todo list is actually very very long! If you want to have a gander about what I'm working on MSA wise, look at User:Jenuk1985/MSA Progress, feel free to edit it as appropriate. Why not set a target to get the Beaconsfield page up to at least a B class article, if not a Good Article like Strensham services? I'll stick my nose in and out digging up sources and information on it over the next few days if I can. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from FeygeleGoy

WikiThanks

Thank you very much for your positive words in the odd battle over my username. Although I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and registered with it for a year and half, I’ve been very slow to try to participate in any discussions here, and have really only started over the last few weeks. Your sticking up for me over this matter is most appreciated! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :-) I'm sure you have been around long enough to notice that there are a handful of editors out there that like to create admin for admins sake, sadly I think you are caught up in one of those situations! Hopefully it will all pass over with time! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rotational (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 {{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|Please see}}=={{#if:|{{{topic}}}|{{#if:|{{{2}}}|{{#if:|{{{location}}}|Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum}}}}}}==
 Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at [[{{#if:|{{{location}}}|Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum}}]]. Thank you. [[User:Ipatrol|Ipatrol]] ([[User talk:Ipatrol|talk]]) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
+== 3RR ==
+{{3RR}} [[User:Rotational|Rotational]] ([[User talk:Rotational|talk]]) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:30, 23 March 2009

Moragn Trent

Serangoon Ave Pages

Speedy deletion of musical recordings

Centrebus

Deletion

London Buses

stewiewispa

Nights routes

Clarification needed

Barnard 68

Re: aserty

Infobox London Bus

Motorway service areas

Thank you from FeygeleGoy

London Buses

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

3RR

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.