User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/November

Can you stop reverting my edits for a moment...
...to point me to where Wikipedia policy demands "References" over "Notes"? Looking at WP:Citing sources, it looks to me as if either is accepted. For instance, here, where examples of citations are given. Thanks. Sach (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely, thus mass changing them to your own personal preference is not acceptable. I notice in many cases they have already been reverted. Jeni  ( talk ) 10:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, instead, you're changing them to your own personal preference? Sach (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm changing them back to how they were before you started fiddling. Jeni  ( talk ) 10:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, calling what I did "fiddling" and a "mass change" is rather misleading, since it implies that I'm going through simply making that change. In fact, with only a few minor exceptions, all of these instance you're reverting were done in the context of significant work done to the article. But in any case, can you point me to the consensus which says that you should change them back, en masse, instead of allowing them to be changed or not chanaged in the natural course of events? Sach (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You only need to look through the archives of WT:Layout to discover your changes are controversial. They are being reverted per the BRD cycle, the next step is discussion. Feel free to start a new discussion at the appropriate talk page (WT:Layout). As I mentioned before I will take the issue to ANI if you continue to edit in this way without consensus, and I have done with similar editors in the past. I'm off now, I guess I'll have to finish the job later (In the interests of making my job easier, how long do such edits go back for?) Jeni  ( talk ) 10:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you can't point me to a consensus that allows you to do that, is that correct? Sach (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting potentially disruptive edits, the onus is on you to prove that you have consensus for the initial changes, so far you have proved that both are acceptable (which I knew anyway - hence I haven't changed it in your edits where the section was previously titled notes). Jeni  ( talk ) 10:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see in what way they're "disruptive", since the form is acceptable. In any event, you don't need to threaten to go to ANI, I've filed this inquiry there.  You might want to stop what you're doing in the meantime to see what the response might be. Sach (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)OK, the relevant policy has been pointed out to me (although I note it with a deep sense of incredulity), and you are quite obviously correct. If you haven't already completed your task, you should change back the rest of my edits. It appears that you wereworking from the top down, so I'll check them from the bottom up. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Sach (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I've reverted all the ones that you didn't Sach (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vk's troubles
I've decided to go neutral, on that case. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, again. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Wakefield
I'm astonished by your comment at Talk:Wakefield, astonished when you proclaim the following on your userpage:

...then say I'm being disruptive. Jeni, this system works fantastic for other places and really would be a good change for Wakefield too. "My system" is based on a principle of neutrality - the status quo is not. --Jza84 | Talk  23:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

admin
how did you become an administer--Anthony 5432 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Anthony 5432