User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/October

Sarah777 RfC/U
As briefly discussed I've started an RfC/U - Requests for comment/Sarah777 2. Dpmuk (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this/comment tomorrow, I've had a long day and I'm feeling particularly knackered! Thanks for letting me know. Jeni  ( talk ) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AfDs and Delete votes
As the nominator, you do not specifically need to place a delete vote - the nomination acts as your delete vote (you wouldn't list it as an article for deletion if you thought it should be kept). Just thought I'd mention that! Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a mix of people who make clear their delete position, and those who don't. There is no harm either way as long as its clear, e.g. "as nominator". Jeni  ( talk ) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

M# motorways
How many of those have be nominated for page movement? I interested in participating in those. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have managed to find them all, and even decided to comment on the closed ones. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments on the 'closed' ones, are just my lamenting of having missed those. As the saying goes "ya snooze, ya loose". GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who campfire trailer GA
I think Doctor Who campfire trailer is missing one key element of GA: It is not stable. Any article in the middle of a merger discussion, particularly one forced on it after an AFD, is by definition not stable. Or rather, if it is by some fluke stable, it is not likely to remain stable for long: Either it will be merged away or it will be improved with heavy editing during the course of the discussion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting unless you're prepared to give a real reason
No, "unnecessary change" doesn't count as a reason. --Doradus (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mass changing wording on articles to suit your personal preference is not acceptable, if you continue I will take the matter further and seek a block for disruptive editing. Jeni  ( talk ) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is the disruptive editor? I started with a good-faith attempt to correct what I saw as a widespread grammatical error (and dictionary.com agrees with me), and you reverted me dozens of times with no proper explanation.  Are you making the claim that "is comprised of" should be considered proper grammar on Wikipedia?  Fine--then say so in your edit summary and stop bludgeoning an editor who is trying to improve the quality of our articles.  --Doradus (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)