User talk:Jeni/Archives/2010/March

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

A5 route

Jeni, the model I was following is that of the A1 and A66 roads. These 'essay' route descriptions are deprecated. At talk:A5 road (Great Britain), you'll see a previous example of the text descending into the "and passes the former Little Chef" level [I kid you not! Check the history.]
So I'm not clear why you reverted - unless of course you don't agree with the 'no essays' position. In which case it needs to be taken to the UK roads project for consensus.

Consensus on the talk page dictates that the A5 route needed expansion, for you to come along and remove detail from it goes against said consensus. The UK roads project is as good as dead anyway, I think I'm the only active member. Jeni ^(talk) 13:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EII article move request

Because you have participated in one of the previous move requests for the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I invite you to take part in the latest move request for that article. Thank you. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 09:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Bus Routes

While creating several new London Transport related articles, I came across a number of pages that you redirected to List of bus routes in London back in May 2009. For the most part I agree with your assessment of the routes as non-notable, but in three cases I recreated the articles. These were, in order of restoration, London Buses route 187, London Buses route 205 and London Buses route 186. In all three cases I updated and sourced the articles, so none is in as-redirected condition. I'm currently checking the others and may recreate some more if I feel they can justify it. Just thought you ought to know, and hope you're OK with this. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Mlpearc

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely hacked off

I would like to apologise if I bite anyone's head off, currently there is a ~~discussion~~ farce ongoing that really makes ones blood boil. Didn't think Wikipedia editors could be so silly. Jeni ^(talk) 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never get involved with the roads people; in all my time here I've never seen such a bunch of obsessives. There's a reason I no longer touch road articles. – iride scent 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that if nobody says owt then the USRD guys steemroll their plan forward. The discussion is seriously lacking outside input from non-americans, at the moment there is a serious risk they will get their own way.

As an aside, UK road articles are usually pretty friendly! Its only really me and a few others editing these days, I want to try to give the UK Roads Wikiproject a kick start again, would you be interested in getting involved? Jeni ^(talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I abandoned road articles long ago in favour of railways, where the relevant projects are run by hobbyists who want to help, rather than a gaggle of batshit-insane obsessives insisting that every damn word has to comply with whatever arbitrary and irrelevant guideline they happened to make up that day and relying on a canvassed block-vote to swing "consensus" to whatever they want it to be. I'm going to be tucked up with the "South East river valleys" articles for the foreseeable so probably won't be coming back to transport for a long time if ever. – iride scent 11:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a certain talk page for my comments. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I don't see how my explianation of what happend could make the matter worse ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty threats

Please stop adding 'Welcome' templates to my user page accusing me of edit warring and accidentally removing maintenance templates. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003. You seem to be repeatedly adding refimprove tags without any associated cn tags. This is counter-productive. If references need improving then state where they need improving. Adding a refimprove banner to the start of the article achieves nothing but detracts from the content of the article itself. Please desist. Owain (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newport County A.F.C.

(from AN3) Reading Talk:Owain#March 2010, it is evident that the entire issue at Newport County A.F.C. is that they have misunderstood the purpose of {{refimprove}}. This could probably have been dealt with quite easily at Talk:Newport County A.F.C.; next time you disagree with an editor, please seek to understand and resolve the issue there first. Adding specifics at the talkpage when you tag an article is also good practice. That page is, however, desperately in need of additional citations. Thank you for bringing this to other editors' attention. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct

You have made a very serious allegation against me which I have been very offended by. It is not acceptable to accuse other editors of things like having a "quiet removal of content approach". You should focus your comments on specific details of encyclopaedia content, not the motives of other contributors. I would like to give you the opportunity to clear the air between us and move on from this, refocussing our efforts on improving the encyclopaedia in the spirit of camaraderie. MRSC (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry that you haven't responded regarding this. It is very easy to say things we don't mean in the heat of the moment, but ultimately it harms the project when we slur other contributors. A word to clear the air from both parties is usually the best way to resolve these matters, allowing all a fresh start free from ill-sentiment. MRSC (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes

Hello, I saw you declined all the prods on the routes. I tagged the ones that didn't look very notable. Was there a discussion that explained how they are notable? I just can't see it for some of them - they are infrequent, with little history behind them. Aiken ♫ 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing page.

That template shall not be delected. The indiscriminated use was fixed and this template is (indirectally) necessary. Johnmartins (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Essex bus routes 542 and 543

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Essex bus routes 542 and 543. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex bus routes 542 and 543. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]