Archives
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived.
2008
Aug - Dec
2009
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2010
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2011
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2012
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2013
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2014
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2015
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2016
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2017
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2018
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2019
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
Why are you here?
The talk page
Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko ( talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive contributions to society. Your recent obsessive editing spree on Wikipedia appears to constitute absolutely nothing and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please do not use recreational drugs. Thank you.
Please stop your obsessive editing on Wikipedia. If your uselessness continues, you will be blocked from editing.
This is the last warning you will receive for your Wikipediholism. If you Wikipedia again, you will be a social outcast.
This is the only warning you will receive for your
Wikipediholism.
If you
Wikipedia again, you will be nominated for
administratorship.
According to the source the content is actually copyrighted, which would make it an G12 speedy. Please visit the AFD again. - Mgm| (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the Barn star, I needed some cheering up .Hopefully I've done enough . Sometime I feel wiki's rules are only their to create work for the user Gnevin ( talk) 22:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the Barnstar, it is much appreciated.
I was not particularly kind about this article elsewhere. I could sympathise with the comments made by the last GAreviewer, but the article certainly had scope for improvement and it was the first of its type, so there were no benchmarks to use. My preference is to try a improve WP:GAN candidates, as opposed to failing them; but failing them is undoubtedly quicker.
I also ended up tweaking your template "Infobox Motorway Services". My initial aim was to try and mimic the one in, e.g. Portishead power station, but I could not work out how to do it. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The same mosaic that was in the Stagecoach Group article infobox is already in Template:StagecoachGroup. "No need for the same photomosaic twice". The infobox seems to need additional cleanup too, as it stretched across the entire page. - Secondarywaltz ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the page does not meet the criteria for a speedy delete.-- Yankees10 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
You write on your main page:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nice infobox but where is the Ibus symbol. C.bonnick ( talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
The implication is obvious. You make it extremely difficult to be civil. Rotational ( talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right - I don't think this is the place for a constructive discussion Rotational ( talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
What do you think about new infoboxes for routes 84, 614, ELC and ELW. C.bonnick ( talk) 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
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)
This comment has been moved to User talk:Spacevezon#London School Buses in an attempt to keep discussions together. |
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)
Hi Jenuk1985, thanks for your note. I saw your early message this afternoon on the A38 talkpage when I was reviewing Edmonton. I'm happy on help on the A38 either by improving it or by reviewing it at WP:GAN - as you appreciate I can't do both. At this stage I was just correcting an error in a statement. Incidentally, what is now the central grass reservations of the dual carriageway sections from the city centre to Longbridge (then along the B4120 to Rubery) were previously dedicated tram tracks - the trams were removed in 1952. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a note about your proposed deletion of this article. I understand that at the time of the nomination, it wasn't yet known that the two pilots had been killed. From my experience, however, a crash involving any type of jet, including small ones, even if there are no fatalities, is likely to meet our notability guidelines, for several reasons. One is because most, if not all jets are multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. Second, a jet crash at an airport usually closes the airport for several hours. At a large airport like Narita, this usually means that tens of thousands of passengers are delayed or diverted to other aiports. Finally, anything that causes a jet to crash is of great concern to the aviation industry and community, because the ramifications of the the crash cause may be of significant impact to passengers and crew of jets everywhere, as well the impact on an airline's reputation and profitability.
Please don't take this as a warning or anything. Instead, I suggest taking the time in the future to fully consider the situation before nominating an article for deletion. Cla68 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
they are route diagram templates and so i moved them to show this. This should not be controversial. Many have got the suffix RDT. Simply south ( talk) 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment on the AfD for Rodeo in the United States, and I agree about the ownership issues. The editor behaves similarly regarding many articles, patrolling them and treating many other editors' good faith edits as if little more than vandalism; just look at her contributions. Would you endorse an RFC/User? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have CSD tagged the last image as it is an accidental copyvio. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a small note, not all users on here are adults, there are some good editors that are still at school. Simply south ( talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This comment has been moved to User talk:Montanabw#WP:OWN concerns with Rodeo in an attempt to keep discussions together. |
There is a small chance that you could convince the other Jeni to change her username. I have the same problem with Soap ... I have the name here, but I can't do Single User Login because there are a couple of other Soaps on other wikis who had the name before me. At least two of them (and there may be only two) have said that they'd be willing to give me their names. But as I have no desire to start editing on the Dutch wikipedia or wikinews, I havent pursued that effort yet. Nevertheless, if you still want the name Jeni, that would probably be the best way forward from here. Soap Talk/ Contributions 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies - I was working from memory when I said merge & delete. I did not do the moerge since I see the content of 100 Tiger Treasures as being as notable as the winners of the club's tombola competition. YMMV. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Freedom_Journal. They're relisted it for no consensus even though 3 people say delete. Thanks for checking it out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Either way, thank you for introducing me to the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle! :) Cpilson ( talk) 01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Archives
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived.
2008
Aug - Dec
2009
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2010
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2011
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2012
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2013
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2014
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2015
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2016
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2017
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2018
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
2019
Jan •
Feb •
Mar •
Apr •
May •
Jun
Jul •
Aug •
Sep •
Oct •
Nov •
Dec
Why are you here?
The talk page
Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko ( talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive contributions to society. Your recent obsessive editing spree on Wikipedia appears to constitute absolutely nothing and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please do not use recreational drugs. Thank you.
Please stop your obsessive editing on Wikipedia. If your uselessness continues, you will be blocked from editing.
This is the last warning you will receive for your Wikipediholism. If you Wikipedia again, you will be a social outcast.
This is the only warning you will receive for your
Wikipediholism.
If you
Wikipedia again, you will be nominated for
administratorship.
According to the source the content is actually copyrighted, which would make it an G12 speedy. Please visit the AFD again. - Mgm| (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the Barn star, I needed some cheering up .Hopefully I've done enough . Sometime I feel wiki's rules are only their to create work for the user Gnevin ( talk) 22:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the Barnstar, it is much appreciated.
I was not particularly kind about this article elsewhere. I could sympathise with the comments made by the last GAreviewer, but the article certainly had scope for improvement and it was the first of its type, so there were no benchmarks to use. My preference is to try a improve WP:GAN candidates, as opposed to failing them; but failing them is undoubtedly quicker.
I also ended up tweaking your template "Infobox Motorway Services". My initial aim was to try and mimic the one in, e.g. Portishead power station, but I could not work out how to do it. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The same mosaic that was in the Stagecoach Group article infobox is already in Template:StagecoachGroup. "No need for the same photomosaic twice". The infobox seems to need additional cleanup too, as it stretched across the entire page. - Secondarywaltz ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the page does not meet the criteria for a speedy delete.-- Yankees10 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
You write on your main page:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nice infobox but where is the Ibus symbol. C.bonnick ( talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
The implication is obvious. You make it extremely difficult to be civil. Rotational ( talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right - I don't think this is the place for a constructive discussion Rotational ( talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
What do you think about new infoboxes for routes 84, 614, ELC and ELW. C.bonnick ( talk) 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
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)
This comment has been moved to User talk:Spacevezon#London School Buses in an attempt to keep discussions together. |
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)
Hi Jenuk1985, thanks for your note. I saw your early message this afternoon on the A38 talkpage when I was reviewing Edmonton. I'm happy on help on the A38 either by improving it or by reviewing it at WP:GAN - as you appreciate I can't do both. At this stage I was just correcting an error in a statement. Incidentally, what is now the central grass reservations of the dual carriageway sections from the city centre to Longbridge (then along the B4120 to Rubery) were previously dedicated tram tracks - the trams were removed in 1952. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a note about your proposed deletion of this article. I understand that at the time of the nomination, it wasn't yet known that the two pilots had been killed. From my experience, however, a crash involving any type of jet, including small ones, even if there are no fatalities, is likely to meet our notability guidelines, for several reasons. One is because most, if not all jets are multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. Second, a jet crash at an airport usually closes the airport for several hours. At a large airport like Narita, this usually means that tens of thousands of passengers are delayed or diverted to other aiports. Finally, anything that causes a jet to crash is of great concern to the aviation industry and community, because the ramifications of the the crash cause may be of significant impact to passengers and crew of jets everywhere, as well the impact on an airline's reputation and profitability.
Please don't take this as a warning or anything. Instead, I suggest taking the time in the future to fully consider the situation before nominating an article for deletion. Cla68 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
they are route diagram templates and so i moved them to show this. This should not be controversial. Many have got the suffix RDT. Simply south ( talk) 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment on the AfD for Rodeo in the United States, and I agree about the ownership issues. The editor behaves similarly regarding many articles, patrolling them and treating many other editors' good faith edits as if little more than vandalism; just look at her contributions. Would you endorse an RFC/User? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have CSD tagged the last image as it is an accidental copyvio. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a small note, not all users on here are adults, there are some good editors that are still at school. Simply south ( talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This comment has been moved to User talk:Montanabw#WP:OWN concerns with Rodeo in an attempt to keep discussions together. |
There is a small chance that you could convince the other Jeni to change her username. I have the same problem with Soap ... I have the name here, but I can't do Single User Login because there are a couple of other Soaps on other wikis who had the name before me. At least two of them (and there may be only two) have said that they'd be willing to give me their names. But as I have no desire to start editing on the Dutch wikipedia or wikinews, I havent pursued that effort yet. Nevertheless, if you still want the name Jeni, that would probably be the best way forward from here. Soap Talk/ Contributions 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies - I was working from memory when I said merge & delete. I did not do the moerge since I see the content of 100 Tiger Treasures as being as notable as the winners of the club's tombola competition. YMMV. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Freedom_Journal. They're relisted it for no consensus even though 3 people say delete. Thanks for checking it out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Either way, thank you for introducing me to the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle! :) Cpilson ( talk) 01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)