User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/June

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

Malvern Water

Hi Jenuk, I wonder if I could impose on you for a completely unbiased review of Malvern Water. The article that I recently split from its parent and expanded has just been tagged for POV and weasel words. As I'm generally extremely careful what I write, I can't really see any justification in the editor's comments. If you have time could you please take a look it and make any suggestions or edits you think fit, and/or come out in support of it. It certainly doesn't lack any notability, and it's well referenced. Many thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag, it was massively inappropriate, there is nothing wrong with that article at all. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apologies for thinking Headbomb had removed it - things happen quicker here sometimes than my lousy satellite connection will allow me to check the edit log :) Kudpung (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your continued support. On User_talk:Headbomb#Malvern_Water I've left a friendly warning/sharp note, and on talk:Malvern Water a reply to your message. --Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Worcestershire

Hi Jenuk. We now have a draft project page for the official Worcestershire project. Please review it and feel free to make any changes you like without further ado or discussion.(what you do will show in the edit summary)--Kudpung (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Worcestershire article watchlist. I have also added it to the new project page that will be published in the next few days when it has had a few more approvals.--Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project.

3 reverts within a 24-hour period

Hi. I have been seen what you did on NSL Buses. I've been doing this because of the image size.

In fact, the image size is small to be shown on the screen. It should be bigger, alike 300px.

The photo is too small on the screen, so I keep changing it to 300px, but someone was keep on changing it back, without even telling me on my talk, and it was you.

Note: If you revert something back which was my edits, please leave a message on my talk.

--AimalCool (talk)

There is no need to notify you on your talk page. On all bar one of Jenuk1985's edits, they have provided an edit summary, telling everybody what they have done. Unfortunately you have made your edits without explaining the reason (until now), so they have kept being reverted. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit didn't I give a summary for? Lack of edit summaries really annoys me and I pride myself on (nearly) always giving one! lol Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very pedantic, but you used the standard revert summary when it wasn't clear cut vandalism, thus not explaining exactly what you did. It hardly matters that much (at all!), I just prefer to give a reason when I'm reverting!! I too always do edit summaries. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was being a little bit lazy and used rollback, it would be nice if there was a second rollback option that allowed you to use an edit summary. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcs

Thanks for all your help on the templates and stuff Jenuk. I'm not so very good at that sort of thing. You might like to check out what I'm doing here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/All Worcs related articles. --Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does one actually get the ratings into the template for each article? I've pulled every bell & whistle and read everything, but I'm still missing something.--Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have done it right on Talk:Bricklehampton :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I finally figured it out. Stupid of me for asking. I have also modified the Template:WikiProject Worcestershire to include categories 'Articles needing attention' and 'articles needing infoboxes', and created the respective category pages - this should automatically generate lists on those category pages (please check that I have done this right); the default settings are 'no'. I wish I had known about this feature earlier, it will make the comments on the project's special 'to do' page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire/All Worcs related articleslargely redundant. See: talk:WikiProject Worcestershire. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parish or Village

I noticed you have renamed a few parishes articles back to villages. Each one needs to be looked at on its own merits and the one I want to bring to your attention is Woolbeding with Redford.

I have started a specific discussion at Talk:Woolbeding but as I want to revert your changes I will bring it to your attention so we do not start an edit war. MortimerCat (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollington, Cheshire

Just out of interest, I'm a tad unclear as to why you've unboldened two settlement names without their own articles with in Mollington, Cheshire. Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the article title should be in bold, per MOS:BOLD. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What about redirects? (Not that these were). Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean there, perhaps you could expand or give an example? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, where an article has been considered too small or lacking in verifiable content/development over a lengthy period, that it has been merged into another article. This has been done by the WikiProject WP:Cheshire, which I'm involved in, for smaller settlements mentioned in civil parish articles. Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should still only be the article title in bold, regardless of what redirects to it, though in general its worth noting that individual village articles are considered to be inherently notable, regardless of length. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion and your experience, but I still don't see where in MOS:BOLD that only article titles should be in bold and why it is such a rigid point. Surely there are exceptions? Being able to find an emboldened name in a mass of text after a page redirect is helpful to the reader. Should italics be used instead? Your latter point: I think I might need clarification of that elsewhere, as this is a practice that may require addressing. Thanks Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Boldface is used to separate the article name from ordinary text." pretty much sums it up. I can see no issue with using italics instead though. As for the villages issue, it is based on community consensus, take a look at a recent AfD debate for example.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astley Cross, closed as snow keep, that sort of attitude towards village articles can be found whenever a village article is sent to AfD. It is listed under AFD Common Outcomes, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source". As far as I'm concerned, the recent attempts to merge individual village articles into civil parish articles completely goes against the accepted consensus, and defies any logic. The villages themselves are much more likely to be notable than any civil parish, mostly because of the very long history that villages have. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold on Curry Rivel

Thanks for your edit to Curry Rivel, however I have reverted it because Burton Pynsent should be bold as it redirects to the article.— Rod ^talk 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD clearly states that only the article title should be in bold. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F says target of redirects should be bold.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" - in this case it is not appropriate, the Manual of Style should take preference. If you have issues with the MoS then I suggest you take it up on the appropriate MoS talk page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is inappropriate? if someone searches wp for Burton Pynsent they will be taken to Curry Rivel & may then be confused - bolding helps them to see they are in the right place & this has been "best practice" on wp for many years.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Redirected from Burton Pynsent" text would be a big clue. If it is best practice, then why is it so rarely done? Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That very small text at the top is not seen by most readers (IMHO) & it is done on thousands of pages. As you suggested I will raise this on the talk page for MOS:BOLD perhaps we could continue the discussion there.— Rod ^talk 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Stockton - on - Tees

You move quickly; I didn't have time to add content to headings before you removed them! I put them in first as it would enabled me to add content more easily. It wouldn't have been a problem of galactic proportions to wait a while would it?

Please assume good faith. You can always use my talkpage to express reservations before making edits. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create the headings as you add the content then, there is no need to add section headings first. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement notability

You might be interested in this discussion about settlement notability. Nev1 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Greens

Thanks for your input into MG's. I didn't start the article, but I wrote most of it. I have been involved in the creation of a Millennium Green since 1998. The project was started by the Countryside Commission who had an overview and responsibility for the creation of the Millennium Greens. However, since the Countryside Commission was converted to the Countryside Agency, which was in turn swallowed up by Natural England there is no interest in the Millennium Greens by any central body. We all operate independantly, with only the most informal links between us. Thus unfortunately, I have struggled to find any real references for the information I have put in the article. I have a copy of the Trust Deed in front of me and I know it was created from a national template for Millennium Greens, but that is not a proper reference.

I am sure you would agree that the Millennium Green project is an important part of the UK legacy of the Turn of the Millennium, but I would be gratefull if you could give me any ideas on where to find suitable references.

If you give me some ideas on what you would like cleaned up in the article, I will see what I can do. Best Wishes,

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvington Hall

Wow! That was quick :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always on the ball :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

You are right I should have noted my reason for rollback. Personally I think that adding a template that says "please add refs" is just stating the obvious. Anyone can see it lacks refs. In fact I saw that you made some style alterations to unreferenced infant schools without heeding the template you added. Im not going to edit war over this ... but the template adds very little .... if at all. Adding a ref would be a good contribution. I do a lot of it. Victuallers (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a commonly used maintenance template on Wikipedia, just because you do not like it does not mean it should not be added. I have bought the schools section in line with the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

See this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil parishes

"The villages themselves are much more likely to be notable than any civil parish..." I can't disagree with that because it is a Wiki policy, although some of the places named are only an emergency telephone box in the middle of a 2,000 acre swathe of common land.
I would however strongly advocate keeping all the stubs on Civil Parishes as they are part of the legal infrastructure of UK local government, and therefore there are lists of them on a national scale in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes vs References

I could lecture you about how there is no consensus for a mass change from one to the other, or I could mention that you'd have a hard time changing them over anyway as "Notes" is used on tens of thousands of pages. Meh, who am I to complain. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reverting another users change to masses of articles which was made without consensus. If some articles which were originally "notes" have slipped into that batch, then I do apologise. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... interesting. This is something that has always left me nonplussed. In spite of looking, I've never found a firm WP policy statement on this. For my 2 cents, I always list my in-line citations as 'references' in a reflist. Anything else goes in 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' etc. If I am wrong in any of this please let me know, as after all these years in Wikipedia, it's time I started getting some things right ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vansak

I'd like to apologize for how rude I was at this AFD. I was really, really, really stressed out and congested. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

I'm not certain what you are now trying to achieve by reverting my close of your Fitzgerald thread on WP:WQA. He was blocked for 3 hours, which was your initial complaint. The "new" complaint seemed to me simply a bit of "me too", and not an actual formal complaint. I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but your reopening it doesn't make sense to me, since the initial complaint was resolved. Unitanode 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint that was made in addition to mine is in no way less valid than mine, in fact it was something I would have raised myself as I had noticed Ed's taunts in his edit summaries, but at the time I forgot to include it. I would have no issues if you closed my part of the thread, separating out the new complaint into a new thread.. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually considering doing that, but was going to ask you first. I'll do that now. Unitanode 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hi. I have a question.

How do I revert something back on a article?

User talk:AimalCool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.39.254 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo 2

Why did you revert my edits on Gizmondo 2? I have been researching the web for a week and I found all these information. It looks like someone thought it doesn't have any Web browser, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth. Well I've seen on the internet that it does have.

Also another thing, I work in a game company in London, and we get all information about consoles. I am in charge about Gizmondo 2, so I decided to get the information on Wikipedia.

--AimalCool (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting valid cleanup edits, reinstating duplicate information. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least, when the console will release, I will be sure that there would be a lot more information on the article, and I'm sure these things I wrote ::will be back there on the article, because, for example, look at Nintendo DS or Sony PSP etc. They have A LOT of information.

I want to add more information...

--AimalCool (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add information, ensuring its sourced and not duplicating existing content, otherwise it will be reverted again. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about 205.156.117.1? He said its all nonsense, and my company received information from Tiger that it does have the features which 205.156.117.1 called nonsense. Is he allowed to say nonsense? Also, he said Whoever made the original page should be banned from Wikipedia, well I was the one that made the page with all the information. Is 205.156.117.1 allowed to say this? --AimalCool (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can say nonsense. The information removed was nonsense! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I know someone is an admin? --AimalCool (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will say so on their userpage. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that possibly is a duplicate. I would add more information AGAIN, but without possibly, LOL --AimalCool (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to message me for every edit you make? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate again? I never said something like probably or maybe. --AimalCool (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you are adding duplicate information! Seriously, just stop, it is now getting very annoying. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I'll leave Wikipedia, bye. About Gizmondo 2, I'll leave one of my colleagues from my game company to do all of this. --AimalCool (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Cheers for reverting some of those logos, you beat me to it! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just catching up with things! This user always seems to be doing *something* wrong! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tapwave

Hey. I have a question. Why did you revert my edits in Tapwave and redirected it to Tapwave Zodiac?

--AimalCool (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable company, content fork, etc... See the page history. If you would prefer, I can nominate it for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Non-Notable company?

AimalCool (talk) 17.55, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.89.165 (talk)

Hanley Castle High School

Hi Jenuk. There has been a lot of vandalism to the article Hanley Castle High School. I don't know how to revert all these, but the article needs reverting to:
Revision as of 21:41, 25 June 2009 (edit) (undo) The Anomebot2
Can you help please? Thanks. Chris. --Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done If you wish to do it yourself in future, it is fairly easy: In the article history, click on the date of the revision of which you wish to revert to. This will show the state of the page at that time, click on edit at the top. You are no editing the page in the state it was in on that date, just save without editing, this will take the current article back to that state. Hope that made sense! Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guyhirn

Whereas infobox is? You restored the chapel, but why not the sluice? Is there a default size for infobox images? Did you not ought to consult Magnus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you are getting at there. There is no default image size, I always set them at 250px which seems to be the "default" generally used in infoboxes. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 250px - so be it. But you think the two original images looked better in the infobox? Why should the chapel be the best image for the village? I was merely trying to improve on Magnus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked the image that I felt would best represent the village. I would have no issues if you swapped them around though. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not feel that the info box, because of the image(s), becomes too big for the article? Ideally any images should be integrated with text within the article. Maybe we should at least ask Magnus for an opinion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length of the article, including an image outside of the infobox would sandwich text between it and the infobox (if aligned left), which should always be avoided, or if aligned right, it would automatically fall below the infobox, out of the way of the text where it is of little use or value. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I tried gallery. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, galleries shouldn't be used for that purpose. Sorry! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the info box still looks too top heavy, with an unrepresentive picture. And we've lost the sluice image altogether. What do you suggest? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the church image with the sluice one? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:1l3, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. It seems this discussion has several issue mangled together, so I'll try to separate them. First, as you may have noticed, I tend to add a whole bunch of images to many related articles (here: villages in Cambridgeshire) using some of my tools. Which means that, in this case, I am not really picky about how the details of the individual article turns out to look in the long run; however, since many of the articles I edit in this fashion tend to have similar length/style (next on my list is Knapwell, almost identical in layout and volume to Guyhirn), a general strategy for adding images to such articles would be of interest.

As for the image size, I use 250px by default, as the map is 240px wide, so the image will not widen the infobox by much, and 250 has been an inofficial default size for medium-sized images, IIRC.

Personally, I think a gallery would be appropriate in this context, the argument being that the "official" way is the infobox, which isn't of optimal use in short articles of this kind. Remember, we're not here to follow some rule, but to make a useful product for the reader. To that end, conforming to rules can be useful (e.g. using infoboxes), but it should never constrain us from doing what's best in the individual case.

Another solution might be to alter the infobox template to display the second image below the infobox text. We could also agree that, where possible, the top image should always be landscape, so the reader can still see the top of the second image below the infobox text. However, given that {{Infobox UK place}} is used in thousands of articles, such a suggestion might be met with resistance.

Finally, I think the worst solution is simply to remove an image merely for perceived layout problems, as it has happened for Guyhirn. At the very least, the two images should get their own category on Commons, and with the removal of the image, a Commons template leading to the category should be added. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Worcestershire village articles, while I have been adding images from geograph, I have also been creating a commons category for the village, and adding the {{commonscat}} template to articles. I noticed that you haven't been adding them to individual image categories, so I have been unable to add such a template. Having more than a single image on an article of no more than a couple of paragraphs isn't really appropriate and is overloading the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both seem far more well-versed in the use of images than do I, so I shall leave it to you. I have now added a section on the Chapel. Sorry if this is a spanner in the works. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add {{Commons cat}} and only one image for very short articles. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest creating a category/adding the template even if there is only a single image? It will make it easier for people wanting to add pictures in the future. :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, more work! ;-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With your tool, is it possible to implement an optional category field? That way I can add the images to a category as I upload them, rather than having to edit the page again once its uploaded. Logically that should be fairly simple to implement? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love you :D Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton

... has 12 references! If there is insufficient for you then add some more. Noting that there are insufficient doesnt help anybody I suggest as theyve know idea which section you think needs an extra ref. When every word has three refs you can still add a maintenence tag and argue that the problem needs fixing before anyone can remove the unsightly maintenance tag. As it is lifes too short to remove it again. Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the article to be littered with loads of citation needed templates, or a single refimprove template? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cublington

I am removing it again. The whole article needs references, not just that part so I put the refimprove tag on it. I don't want people thinking that's the only part that needs references. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced phrase has been removed, please do not add unsourced content to wikipedia. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - the whole article needs sources, is there a reason why you won't address that point? I'm not sure why you think that one paragraph is so different. I'm not new and need no lectures from you. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the rest of the article is crap, doesn't mean that new additions needn't follow WP guidelines. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags - Dunstable

Your welcome message on my talk page is totaly inapproriate and will be deleted. Firstly, the removal of the tag to Dunstable was for a valid reason as the tag is not required as the page has 28 references in total covering just about every paragraph and section and secondly I did provide a reason for its removal in the edit summary. Please take a look again. I cannot see where in particular it requires additional citations for verification but if you spot one why not help to improve the article by drawing that particular one to editors' attention or even find one to be of some help.Tmol42 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you would like me to cover the article with citation needed templates, which is less appropriate, then I shall do that.~~ Actually, no I won't because I'm against flooding an article with citation needed templates. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above as the article has 28 references at present it is not easy to see where you orignially thought that it requires significantly more additional citations. So as you have decided sensibly not to proceed to try and indicate where all these apparently missing citations are required and bearing in mind Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources and Template:Fact#When not to use this template as guidance the tagging is IMO unhelpful so I will remove the tag. If you have any further thoughts on improving the article it would be helpful to other editors as I originally suggested that the article's Talk page is used :) Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used the fact template, I've used the refimprove template. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN

FYI Wikipedia:AN#miss use of Reimprove?. –xeno^talk 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to leave a note on the talk page explaining where specifically you feel references need to be improved, especially on articles with a good number of sources already in place; i.e. where it would be unclear. –xeno^talk 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Postcard Cathy#Maintenance Tags

FYI, not all of them go at the top.--Rockfang (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I shall go and edit that comment to include "most". Fwiw, the templates the user had been using were of the variety that belong at the top, so I don't think there is much "damage" done. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]