User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/April

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tag

Sorry about that, I'm using Twinkle and I accidentally clicked "CSD" instead of "XFD" when I nominated it for AFD. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Kumar Nair

FYI, Jai Kumar Nair This article had content, thus A3 was not appropriate. The article even makes a claim at significance having won the Mahayudh... I did however prod the article and it should probably be sent to AfD if the PROD is removed. CSD has a very high standard, if the article makes a claim to importance/significance then it is not eligible for CSD. This one did so... but would need a lot to avoid a deletion. But that is why we have prod, to give the authors a chance to assert said notability.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I started the twinkle process, the article only contained "e", an edit appears to have been made shortly before I let twinkle do its work, thus I never saw it! Apologies! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Please don't template the regulars. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you linked to an essay, so I shall link to an essay back... Template the regulars. Secondly, that is not a template anyway. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you get points for sheer boldness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many points? I want to start a scoreboard! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However many points it takes to make Numberwang. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A78

Thanks for removing the incorrect interwiki links to this road (where, incidentally, I was once hit by a car, many years ago). I've removed the corresponding links from the other wikis, otherwise they will just re-appear again when the interwiki bots are run. Hope this helps. NSH001 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that there may be more road articles that suffer from this same problem, but I don't have the time to check through right now. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, but if you do see such duff iterwiki links appearing, remember you HAVE to get rid of them on ALL the wikis, otherwise they WILL come back again. Good luck, NSH001 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Come Home for Christmas

Jeni, I am not sure why the novel Please Come Home for Christmas was removed; each reason you gave to justify deletion was addressed. Please assist!([[ scottfulton3667|talk]])

It was a very confused article, to be honest I was having great difficulty in trying to work out what it was?!?! It appeared to be nothing more than a test page, showing nothing noteworthy or encyclopaedic. Can I suggest that you practice things in the Sandbox and possibly edit a few other articles before you jump in and create another page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

Personally, when I come across a copyvio article for someone as unquestionably notable as a member of the Royal Society, like Anthony G Evans, I stubbify it, not delete it. I did that here, and explained in my own words to the author how to properly expand the article. DGG (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M54 motorway

You're being unreasonable. The standard is that which has been used on that article for a long time, I'm assuming many other editors have seen it, it passed GA and therefore nobody who has previously viewed the table has a problem with it. Their is no previous 'standard' on motorway routeboxes, they were just added as a bare 'basic' to be improved upon. In most articles, they have just been left as the one you seem to prefer. I cite the M62 motorway, a FA, which has been edited to include coordinates. Yet you continue to remove my additions which include coordinates, amongst other useful facts.

The fact that you claim it's confusing is somewhat dubious. What is confusing about a table?
The county/district/miles from start information is irrelevant? how so?
It looks ugly? It's a table. Again, more opinion.

I request you change back your mistaken edit. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added coords, I apologise, I have fixed that now and added coords for the major junctions, as is done elsewhere. Its confusing because of the layout of how counties etc have been added, yes there is probably no better way to do it, but that is a good reason to leave it off, its not essential to the table anyway. It looks ugly because of how confusing it is to read, it is not a sensible layout for the information. There is a discussion somewhere on the UK Roads WikiProject regarding a similar layout which the Americans tried (and failed) to force on us, specifically relating to county information. I am not being unreasonable, consistency is a very important factor in a group of similar articles (in this case UK motorways) Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've had a quick look at the discussion on the UK Roads wikiproject, and it seems there is no consesus. However, WP:ELG makes it clear that instead of edit warring back and forth it should just be left as the last type. I believe my version was very close to the M6 example shown on WP:ELG, and I would rather it looked like that than it does now, as I had already worked on it and made sure it was all correct. So honeslty I don't see the point in your deletion of the county information and the junction mileage. You're right that these facts aren't integral to the table, but they do inform the reader, and IMO anyway it is no more confusing than the current version. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other UK roads article (unless I have missed one) uses an exit list similar to those listed on that page, not even the M6 which is given as an example. That page is left over from last time the Americans tried to force their view on us. Thanks for bringing that to my attention though, I'll get it updated soon. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Asdf, your version looks pretty ugly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However, WP:ELG makes it clear that instead of edit warring back and forth it should just be left as the last type." - ELG taken out of context. ::Rschen7754 (T C) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW nobody asked you to comment on this. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you don't own this talk page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfasdf1231234 please remember to be civil. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the civility policy. I don't see the need for someone else to butt in when we've clearly already resolved this. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Elizabeth Blood

I do apologise for alarming you with my vandalism on the above page which apparently caused widespread disruption. I hope you soon recover from the trauma of the incident. ciao Rotational (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that one day I'll get over that trauma. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides trivial edits that seem to irritate a lot of editors, do you make meaningful contributions to WP? Rotational (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Jenuk1985. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Trevor Wyatt, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please check the article history before tagging. Speedy deletion was already declined for this article by another admin and should not be re-tagged again. Also, the article makes enough claims of notability to fail A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards So Why 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have now declined at least half a dozen of your tags, I felt I needed to take a minute to write a more elaborate message. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion again. This tagging for example was incorrect, because personal essays are failing WP:NOT but are not vandalism. You should use WP:PROD instead. As a tip, because I appreciate people helping with new page patrolling and so on, let me give you some helpful links to avoid such mistakes in future: WP:10CSD is a guide I wrote of the 10 most common mistakes in speedy deletion; WP:CA7M is a guide about common mistakes specifically for criterion A7 (which you seem to make); WP:WIHSD is a more elaborate list of mistakes and WP:FIELD serves as a guideline essay. I hope these help you to avoid those mistakes (like the one above) in future. If you need any assistance in any way, feel free to contact me. Regards So Why 08:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your comments, I do disagree with half of the declines you have made, but that is how the system works, hopefully next time I patrol I'll get an admin more likely to delete. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While another admin might delete outside policy, I do not think that hoping for it is a good thing. There is a reason that CSD is very strict and is limited to certain cases. I decided to write you this note because your editing history has multiple cases of declined speedies (by multiple admins) based on A7 mistakes, something that can easily be avoided. But the choice whether you accept my advise or continue your current approach is entirely yours of course. I'm just trying to help after all. Regards So Why 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Pr1ma

Why the hell was the article moved? Tata Prima is NOT the name of the car, it is Pr1ma. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to match the name of the car which is given in the article, apologies if this is incorrect, but in which case you should ensure that articles which you create are also accurate. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I created it, it said Pr1ma, some idiot edited it to Prima. What I did WAS accurate. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The International Association of Media and History

Might you consider withdrawing your nomiation? This organization is not flashy, but is quite notable... being quoted in publications[1][2][3]and in creating the yardsticks by which media experts and academic media historians judge their own industry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not convinced about the notability, and I intend to let the AfD run. I can't really see any non trivial information on the Google links you have given (which I previously checked anyway) Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of UK road articles

I see you have reverted my edit in A4018 road. I'm not sure that you're right that the History section generally comes before route - are you aware of any discussion or consensus on the issue? Several articles I just checked have Route first (although some have History first).

I think the consensus in WP:HWY is actually the better order. The History section inevitably discusses the route, and it is mighty confusing if you haven't read what the route is first. In the specific case of A4018 road the article would need quite a bit of rewriting to make sense if we stuck with your order. Of course you could get round this by expanding the intro to include a more detailed description of the route, but that seems to lead to too much duplication.

I would welcome your thoughts. Mhockey (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of roads that put history first: A40 road, A44 road, A45 road, A46 road, A426 road, A427 road, A441 road, A445 road, A446 road and A452 road. However there are a selection of articles which also put route first. There is no hard and fast rule, but it is sensible that some sort of consistency is put in place. I am reluctant to get involved with WP:HWY as many of their polices have been put in place by a subset of American editors who are now trying to dictate their views on the rest of the world, without adequate consensus.

Yes, it is important that we now take this and generate some sort of consistency (obviously now I have looked at the issue in detail, it is not as consistent as I first thought), my opinion is that the logical structure is to detail the past (history), following through to what is currently in place (route), following through to what future plans are known. I feel that it is important that the centrepiece of the articles is not the route itself, as then it loosely becomes a travel guide.

Perhaps we should be taking this further on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads, though its not particularly active these days, it may pick up a bit more input from relevant editors (and indeed stimulate a bit of activity back into the WikiProject!) Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle

Please revert this close. The nominator may have withdrawn, but many others have now taken part in the discussion. With all the nonsense surrounding this AfD already, it seems like it'd be a good idea to let it run it's full length...and to let an admin do the closing. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an apporpriate closure, the nominator has withdrew and there is no reasonable chance that this will close as anything other than keep. Some common sense seriously needs to be applied here rather than an disrupting WP to prove a point. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator withdrawing doesn't matter, and you shouldn't close in any case as you've involved yourself in the discussion already. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a WP:COMMONSENSE edit. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that it was inappropriate to close it like that. What's common sense to you, does not seem to be common sense to others :) It has now been reopened. I suggest not trying to close it again. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make no further comments other than in the reopening of that AfD, the last shred of common sense that Wikipedia had left in it, went flying out of the window. Its all now just a load of admin for admins sake. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For putting up with certain situations and helping with the NP backlog.Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]