User talk:Jeni/Archives/2010/June

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

Yate

Look more closely. I was reverting unsourced IP vandalism. Look at the IP's edit history on the article which includes this diff: [1]. Thank you. (I am replying here because I have deleted the warning from my page.) Harry the Dog WOOF 07:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit's were vandalism, constantly re-introducing POV which was correctly being removed by the IP editor. Jeni ^(talk) 09:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't. They editor had already vandalised the pagein the dif I referenced. I removed the words "run-down" (which is not necessarily POV but since unreferenced it should be removed) but apart from that, the POV is clearly the IP's. Please be more careful in future when placing warnings. Perhaps ask the editor about the edits first. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these edits are vandalism and are attributed to your user account, [2][3][4][5], you have made several incorrect warnings on User talk:82.33.101.177. I think its about time you had a read of Wikipedia policies. Jeni ^(talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! I notice that you didn't remove the offending POV yourself! Don't accuse people of reintroducing POV without removing it. I was warning the IP about the change in numbers on the schools. The IP started off with vandalism on the page. The word "rundown" had been on the article unchallenged for a long time. However, to avoid further problems, I removed the contentious words as an indication of WP:goodfaith Please be more careful in the future and discuss things with established editors before issuing warnings, and suggesting that they "read up" on policies that they are well aware of. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Established editors aren't exempt from receiving warnings, you'll be good to remember that one. Jeni ^(talk) 09:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're not. But it is also good to remember that it is good to discuss things before issuing warnings in cases like this. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way you were starting constructive discussions with the person you edit-warred with? I treat people how they treat others. Jeni ^(talk) 09:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did actually. In response to this diff [6] which is clearly vandalism, I issued a polite level 1 warning to which the IP could have responded. Instead, he/she simply continued to edit the page with no response. The second warning I issued included the sentence "Please do not change longstanding material without providing references." Again, that was ignored. Please Jeni, try to understand that my actions were not vandalism, were done in good faith and that the warning you issued was unjustified. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the reverts you made, which I linked to above, you treated as vandalism and blind warned, no attempt at discussion, and gave the user warnings. Please please please do read up on what is and what isn't vandalism. An edit that you don't agree with is not vandalism. I will be watching your contributions in the coming weeks to ensure that you are not making other questionable judgements. Jeni ^(talk) 10:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree with you entirely. The first edit was clearly vandalism. I am not sure how you can deny that. The warning issued was constructive and proportionate. Given that the IP continued to edit the article, adding unsourced material, with no acknowledgements of the warning given, justifies my further warnings and reversions. Granted that the material on the page was also unsourced, but it was longstanding and therefore should either have been removed or replaced with sourced material. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't give two hoots about an editors previous edits to the page, stop using them as an excuse to justify your actions. Your reverts were equally as bad as his actions, as far as I'm concerned, end of story. Jeni ^(talk) 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Jeni. We are not talking about "previous edits". We are talking about vandalism, for which the editor was warned, immediately after which the editor continued to edit the page in ways that could be seen as unconstructive, especially in light of the lack of acknowledgement of the warning issued. Look, it's not the end of the world. I think that section is OK as it is now. Let's see if the IP makes any further changes. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thetford

Hi. You may not recall me. As a new editor, I started editing Little Thetford on 30th May 2010 and you Copy-viod'd me. I did not run away. I did not take offence. I read all I could about wikipedia editing and today, the article was awarded GA status. I thank you sincerely for your support. Your help is much appreciated. --Senra (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire bus route 144

On Worcestershire bus route 144, I've fixed one Northfield dab but I don't know how to fix the Northfield one in Infobox: Route map (Legend). I think it's some kind of tpl but I don't know how to get into it.--Kudpung (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) The template is at Template:Worcestershire bus route 144 Jeni ^(talk) 11:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jeni. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Message added 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:AGF

You may well disagree with the WP:PROD - but the are/were not bad faith !

For example Recloose : this or this

Codf1977 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't twist the searches then you come up with the proper results. I think you know that you will rarely get results featuring the exact term "XXXX record label" Jeni ^(talk) 10:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried Recloose but likewise got only noise, nothing that appeared to be coverage of the record label. Codf1977 (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be creative, no wonder you are PRODing so many articles with silly reasoning.

Nothing significant about the company, most of it is coverage by association, blogs or lists of releases - not coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jeni. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Trying to help. Kudpung (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Jeni ^(talk) 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. I just want to say thank you for your support. I was feeling pretty battered, and considering giving up completely, but hopefully this will all now be resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]