User talk:Jeni/Archives/2010/July

Stroud, Gloucestershire
My removing the link to London wasn't a mistake. It was in line with WP:OVERLINK. It's reasonable to assume that almost all readers know what city is referred to by 'London', and that they therefore won't use the link, so it has no value and merely distracts attention from the more useful links. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Trust
Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Trust I wonder if you could look into this. It seems to be 'up your street'. I don't think this AfD is justified at all, but I can't find a plausible reason (yet) for saying so. I'll wait until others have commented before I put my oar in.--Kudpung (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, same disruptive user making the nomination I see! Jeni  ( talk ) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting
Rather than reverting hundreds of articles on sight, please bring the issue to an appropriate venue so we can discuss the matter. From WP:EW: "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution." --Rschen7754 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Don't revert due to "no consensus". --Rschen7754 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes its the only way to deal with you guys when you bulldoze through your agenda. You guys should have bought the issue up at the appropriate venue before starting on your mass conversions. I'll have to revert the rest of the Malaysia articles tomorrow as I have to go to work now. Jeni  ( talk ) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what if the result of the discussion is to convert to IBR? Then do we go through the articles and revert them again? Do you see the extra work that that causes? Why not *discuss first* if you disagree rather than reverting on sight? We as a matter of speaking; while I support the work that they are doing, I'm not doing the conversions. --Rschen7754 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni, this is the Be bold, revert, discuss cycle. These editors are being bold in an area where few or no regular editors ever edit. Your reversions are not based on it being done on articles you work on without discussion, it's based on making a point. That is not being civil. Continuing to revert more articles when you are being approached about it is out of line. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote a wikipedian with wise advise:
 * If you believe that change is necessary to bring Wikipedia out of the stone ages, make it happen! That is how Wikipedia evolves. Don't let stubborn editors stuck in the past get in your way. Work for the greater good, not the good of those stuck in their ways. There are ways and means of making change happen, any reasonable change will gather support from those that want it.
 * I think some of us were the agents of change on this, and you're the stubborn editor stuck in your ways.  Imzadi  1979   →   17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A second line of discussion concerning Malaysian. Your reversions there are out of line, Jeni. The main Malaysian editor has been informed of the conversion. He's continued to edit articles where the infobox was switched, and he didn't revert it. That implies consent to the changes. He hasn't contested the CSD taggings, in fact the only one that has contested them is you.  Imzadi  1979   →   18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I see any discussion anywhere in relation to the switch on Malaysian road articles outside of the user talk namespace? No, didn't think so. Nothing on the talk pages of the templates in question, nothing on WT:WikiProject Malaysia. All this "infobox switching" has been is a closed group of individuals mass changing articles with very little or no communication to the users of the countries concerned. In the main, discussion has only been stimulated when someone from that place pipes up and says "no, hang on, this isn't right". Jeni ( talk ) 06:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No discussion is necessary to make a bold editing decision.  Imzadi  1979   →   06:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think mass conversion of worldwide templates is a bit beyond bold, if we are being completely honest. Jeni  ( talk ) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an inquiry at WP:VPP. I think the last two comments are quite insightful. --Rschen7754 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that whole discussion seems to back up my view. Jeni  ( talk ) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "To put it more succinctly, mass-reversion is uncivil, unproductive, and violates the spirit of not edit warring that WP:BRD was created to encourage despite the fact that it follows the letter of the process. --erachima talk 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)" That clearly does not. --Rschen7754 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be ignoring the rest of that discussion there. "I tend to agree. Unless the changes were quite clearly detrimental in some way, there's no hurry to revert them, as long as your opposition is recorded. But the other editor also ought to stop making any more changes once you communicate your opposition. (Unless, of course, the issue has already been decided by a reasonable consensus.)". My opposition to this was recorded a while ago, yet you still continued, and no doubt will still continue, leaving me with no option to revert unless you achieve consensus from the appropriate sources. Jeni  ( talk ) 07:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If such consensus is achieved, will you continue to interfere with the infobox changeovers? --Rschen7754 07:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So long as the consensus is actually there, hence I've left NZ now. (By consensus I mean proper consensus, not some hidden away discussion on WP:HWY which is as dead as a dodo these days.) Proper consensus will involve generating discussion from the local editors through the appropriate local roads wikiproject, or where that is lacking the local general wikiproject. My problem with you guys is your desire to bulldoze through your own POV at any point possible while trying to consult as little as possible with the users in which it actually affects!  Jeni  ( talk ) 07:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the spirit of WP:BRD. If the editors in those regions dislike the changes, they can raise a voice, and at that point it would be acceptable for you to come lend a hand to them. In this case, you are the resistance where there otherwise would be none. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * . --Rschen7754 06:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, do you have any issues with the template itself? I may have overlooked, but I don't ever recall any input outside of "I don't like it!" and "We have our own template, thanks," vague answers which don't really tell me why. For all I know, you're only against it because it's WP:USRD people who are implementing it. I am only looking for comments to make the template better, so please save your vitriol. &mdash;Fredddie™ 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your excellent magic...
Hi Jeni, I wonder if you could once again apply  some of your expertise and tools to add a populated infobox to Leigh and Bransford? I never seem to  be able to  do  this without  making  a mess of it. --Kudpung (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope I am not butting in here. If Jeni is busy, I can create a populated infobox to Leigh and Bransford if you wish; I would use . Let me know on my talk page --Senra (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford image replacement proposal
Little Thetford&mdash;Proposal to replace existing 2006 image of roundhouse with 1906 image. Please join the debate --Senra (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From Deb
Hi, Jeni. You claim to be a UK user. How come you don't know that Deb is a girl's name? Deb (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)