User talk:Jenova20/Archive 2

Welcome to the LGBT Studies WikiProject!
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Daytime running lights
Hi, Jenova. Thanks for paying attention to the UK section of Daytime running light. It's been in need for awhile. I wanted to explain why I went in right after you and changed your contribution: the source you found and linked contained a fair number of factual errors. The Volvo 240 was indeed the first car on the UK market with DRLs, but they were not separate 21w bulbs next to the 5w sidelight bulbs; they were in fact an ordinary P21/5w dual-filament bulb—one bulb in one socket on each side of the car. The 5w filament was for the sidelight function, and the 21w filament was for the DRL. This was a direct carryover from the Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian-spec 240s. That's a fairly trivial error in your source; the more serious one is their flawed description of how and why Dim-Dip went away. It's got a small kernel of fact at its centre; it was indeed an EC/UK dispute, but just after that's where your source's description goes off the rails. Also, you changed an instance of "decreases fuel consumption" to "increases fuel consumption"; in context, "decreases" is correct—functionally-dedicated DRLs do decrease fuel consumption compared to running the headlamps during the daytime. I've brought in and adapted the relevant text and more direct refs from Automotive lighting, and thus have also been able to delete the awkward "See Automotive Lighting for more information" line. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, i see, I used one of the first sources i found in a rush and didn't check its factual quality.
 * Thanks for the feedback and i'll have another look over the weekend.
 * Ta  J e n o v a  20 15:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Adoption school
By the way Jenova, have you had look at your adoption page recently? IMO, you're very close to finishing your adoption - certainly outside of the "school" you've fulfilled all the requirements I'd look for - if you could finished of the final two modules (Templates and Vandalism), and run through the final test, I'd be happy to "graduate" you :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jenova. I've added a reply to your comment on the talk page. Have a look and let me know if it makes sense.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jenova. I've put in another step to the template thinking on the talk page. Have a look and let me know if it makes sense.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jenova. If I'm honest, there's not a lot more I can teach you, I'm tempted to suggest we move on from the templates, there's only one other lesson (vandalism) and the final test, and then I think you're nearly out of the woods, ready to advance from adoption. You're welcome to come back and learn about templates at some point in the future, but since you've stalled on it, shall we move on? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, i admit defeat.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't feel too disheartened. You're still an excellent editor, and the amount of progress you've shown is brilliant. There will be a template question on the final test, have a go at it, it's worth 5 marks, you might suprise yourself at how well you do. Anyway, I'll collapse it and move you along :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * It's something i could only ever learn by doing it and making templates but i can't figure out how so i want to give up on it.
 * Thanks for trying  J e n o v a  20 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's got different strenghths. Whilst I think templates are extremely powerful and should generally be known, that doesn't mean everyone needs to, you can always come to me if you need some help with one ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what a template is to be honest.
 * Anyway i'll get started on vandalism, i should be fine, most of my experience is being called a vandal though rather than encountering them.
 * =]  J e n o v a  20 15:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Back to work
I'm afraid cars are not really one of my specialities, so I'll keep out of this one. There's no need to gain more input just yet anyway, as requested moves run for a week, and people will find them through a few different channels. Generally canvassing is easy to run foul of, so I'd personally not risk it (leaving a note at the automobile wikiproject at most). Interesting article though, I had no idea there were so may cars called Yaris... and I have one! WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a note at the WikiProject to be careful.
 * Besides, if i was ever to be a canvasser - i'm crap at it because OSX voted against me and you fairly abstained lol.
 * So i think i'm fairly safe from accusations as that wasn't exactly a good way to canvass was it?
 * I respect your opinion to abstain if i didn't make it clear.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You passed the test with a score of 84%, significantly above the pass mark. I also note that you finished it within the alloted time, very impressive. I hereby award you the

And as if that wasn't enough.

Well I had a good teacher! Thanks =]  J e n o v a  20 09:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, but you did a great job. I can only teach one who is willing to be taught.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't say i was surprised that cleaning up articles was my best area.
 * I am a neat freak after all =]
 * Did you see the picture of Chairman Mao someone stuck on my page aswell when i was reverting vandalism?
 * I look forward to working with you in future Worm.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if you try to do good on the site, you will come across problems, and pictures of Chairman Mao aret he sort you might hit. The trick is to stay away from the vandals unless you are willing to put up with their stupidity. At least you've experienced it now!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two vandals over 2 days from just 5 reverts is a bit much though, i don't think i could do that full time.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll get used to them eventually. -- The Σ talkcontribs 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes
Something I made when I saw your request on User talk:Adwiii. User:Σ/UBX/UserDroid -- The Σ talkcontribs 06:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't do that edit on your userpage. My IP address is something along the lines of 70.something.something.... -- The Σ talkcontribs 17:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta, in spain at the moment, will be bk Sunday

Thanks a lot  J e n o v a  20 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Adwiii Talk  17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

New copyright lesson
Hi Jenova. I've re-written the copyright lesson, and was wondering if you had any thoughts on its clarity. User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Copyright. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's amazing, got it spot on there Worm! =]
 * Congrats  J e n o v a  20 12:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that for me :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problemo =]  J e n o v a  20 12:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dell Inspiron Duo
We really don't need any more entries in the table with only question marks instead of the specs. If you don't want the entry to be removed during clean-up, fill in the cells with question marks. Hakimio (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) They are filled with question marks, your statement is contradictory.
 * 2) You don't decide solely what goes into the article just because you work there a lot.
 * 3) I provided you 3 sources with all those specs because i figured you would do it faster than me.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Just because there are many entries in the table with question marks instead of specs doesn't make it ok to add even more entries with question marks.
 * 2) Before I started working on the article it was a total mess and looked like this. I don't just "work a lot on it" - I am currently the only maintainer.
 * 3) The links don't really matter until you actually use the info they provide.

Long story short, it's pretty simple to add the missing info, but if you don't do that, ultimately the entry will be removed with all the other entries that don't provide valuable info and just waste space. Adammw already removed some of the useless entries with this edit. Hakimio (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kia Picanto
Okay, I can understand your will. I did the edit because I find those tables a little unaesthetic in the layout of the page with and such little text around them. I suggest we drop the tables and use a non-text layout like in Hyundai Getz. By me it looks a little better. Also, I suggest to use only "Kia Picanto" in the photo captions because it improves readability, and there's a little issue with the first Euro NCAP ref link. I'll save my revision directly on the article and if you don't like it you can revert to a version you want. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe adding a multiple image template in the left, with an additional rear view makes it a little better? BaboneCar (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the original safety section on Getz was mine although i can't be sure.
 * I'm updating all because i realise how some cars can have really critical statements from NCAP and others can fare worse and get an applause from them.
 * So i'm doing all of them to cut out Weasel/POV statements and leave it completely unbias-able.
 * I'll look at your new revision but if i do revert then it's only because i'm waiting for a response from the auto club on their opinions.
 * Like i said, i did like the way you laid it out in a row but i think it's less confusing for the reader if they are in the proper sections and can't be confused that way.
 * Also i'm no good at adding pictures and captions so change something if you want me to understand and i'll take a look.
 * Thanks for the speedy response  J e n o v a  20 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what template you are talking about. And which auto club are you referring to. BaboneCar (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Automobiles
 * Most articles with a "safety" section will have the table from Euro NCAP.
 * These tables are currently being discussed at the automobile wikiproject so changes to them while it's ongoing will either be reverted or just changed back.
 * Feel free to join in the discussion, i don't know if you need to be a member though.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

auto safety "template"
Hi, as I stated in my edit comment, what's amiss is that "adult", "child", and "pedestrian" are common single words that are gratuitously wikilinked, per WP:OVERLINK. Please unlink them across the board. Rostz (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed to change that at the auto club talk page.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh you mean the Euro NCAP links from what i can see on the Toyota Prius page.
 * Those are staying, they are not overlinking at all.
 * Take your disagreement to the autoclub page where this is being discussed before changing again.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, but repeated links clearly go against the MOS; as I point out there, you need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS to edit against WP guidelines, not the other way around. Rostz (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are incorrect, please read the section about OVERLINKING again as tables are clearly exempt.
 * I have removed the links in the table anyway because i'm not sure why they are there but the Euro NCAP one is staying as it is important to the safety section.
 * This is not against consensus it is you wrongly interpreting it.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to revert it a third time without discussing it properly to receive your free 3RR block.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop it both of you, or I'll block you both for edit warring. Discussion has started, let's see what happens there. You should both know better than to keep reverting each other.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Opel Calibra
You clearly did not read my revision note - I REMOVED the spam link, you then reverted my action and restored the spam link!! I am all for keeping this Opel Calibra article clean and tidy with only useful references, that is why I remove the link that had been added to vxcalibra.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.235.223 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct, i apologise.
 * Please place a new section at the bottom of a page though, the oldest stuff is at the top.
 * Consider making your own account aswell, it allows you more options when editing.
 * Thanks and sorry again  J e n o v a  20 12:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jenova20 - I note that you have removed all URL's except for the CalibraWiki link, I believe that this is a good step for improvement - however the link to ClubCalibra (www.clubcalibra.com) is a genuinely useful resource and is an active, global and well established community since the mid 90's (indeed it has assisted me on many an occasion), I believe that it should be reinstated as it will be of interest to those loyal to the Calibra. I thought it best to post here for your opinion before making an edit to reinstate just that single link. --94.173.235.223 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you may call a useful resource we call blatant advertising.
 * No amount of rephrasing the argument would get the link reinstated because it breaks WP rules.
 * Please don't add it again, it would be removed and i would have to place a warning on your talk page against doing it again.
 * Thanks for bringing it to me for my opinion again but there really is no way to add it to Wikipedia 90.209.124.6 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Final Fantasy rocks!!!
...that is all I had to say... and that I've "wasted" a big chunk of my life playing it. ;-) Oh, and I hope you don't mind if I jump in on your discussion on homophobia in the media. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * True! Final Fantasy does indeed rock!
 * Feel free to contribute to the discussion
 * Thanks 82.132.138.253 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Gee, thanks =]
 * Didn't i do copyright in your adoption school or did i fail it?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you did, you passed. and i think i let you see my improved lesson when i rewrote it  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that my adoption course barnstar has the copyright bit as "skipped".
 * Can i get the finished one?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, it had the templates bit as skipped - copyright was in the top right ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, i see!
 * Sorry, must remember to look properly when i'm doing fifty things at once =P
 * Thanks for your interjection in the LGBT Studies page, i wasn't planning on responding but i will have to if the truth is being bent and history is being distorted.
 * Thanks again  J e n o v a  20 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hey Jenova. Can I ask what you were trying to achieve by just posting a link at the talk page? It's not really discussing the article - Philip was right to remove it and accusing him of trying to whitewash was unfair - since he added it to the article before your accusation. It would have been better for you to say what you wanted, suggesting it goes in or perhaps even adding it to the appropriate section as Philip did. Leaving a link on its own is only going to get people talking about the topic, not the article and that's not what wikipedia is for  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't add to that article, i'll just post stuff i find on there sometimes and be slapped down for the suggestion.
 * I only reloaded the page to see that the comment had completely disappeared and assumed as usual it had been rejected and i also misread the edit summary.
 * I didn't expect it to get added to the article and was in a rush so i just added the link, rather than post anything that would have me accused of anything like bias.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it was added really.  J e n o v a  20 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hope you like the UBXs  Adwiii  Talk  00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're great.
 * Could i be real anal about this and ask for them all to have the same sized image though?
 * And i also wanted to know how to change the text so that i could have userboxes for:
 * This user contributes using Android ✅
 * This user has contributed with Android 1.6 - Donut ❌
 * This user has contributed with Android 2.1 - Eclair ❌
 * This user contributes with Android 2.3 - Gingerbread ✅
 * This user contributes with Android 3.1 - Honeycomb ✅
 * This user will soon contribute with Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich
 * I'd just like to be able to change the text rather than have you create a new userbox each time there's a change because it's easier on both of us.
 * Thanks Adwii, love your work!  J e n o v a  20 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has taken so long, I ran into a few bugs in the code. If you need the link again, User:Adwiii/UBX/Android. I have added all versions, made it so you can add your own pic, size of the pic and change the message too. And of course is there is anything wrong with it please let me know. Hope you like it, Adwiii  Talk  22:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries
 * How do i change the text on them?
 * And would it be possible to get two more for Donut and Eclair with changeable text also?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To change the text you change the "message" parameter. When you do this it resets to the default picture unless you choose a separate one. so produces:


 * And what exactly do you want for the next Donut and Eclair ones? Sincerely Adwiii  Talk  11:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like this exact wording if you could:
 * This user contributes using Android ✅
 * This user has contributed using Android 1.6 - Donut
 * This user has contributed using Android 2.1 - Eclair
 * This user contributes using Android 2.3 - Gingerbread
 * This user contributes using Android 3.1 - Honeycomb
 * This user will soon contribute using Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich
 * I'd like to be able to change the wording though as i receive upgrades.
 * Thanks a lot Adwii, hope i'm not being a pain  J e n o v a  20 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually like this design better:
 * If you could do them all like this and an eclair and donut too i would greatly appreciate it
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording to what you asked for; however, I'm not quite sure what you are asking for in Donut and Eclair above, sorry. I hope these changes are at least partly what you wanted, Adwiii  Talk  21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's perfect!
 * All i was asking for is another 2 userboxes: one for 1.6 "Donut" and one for 2.1 "Eclair".
 * Could i have a different text though as "This user has contributed using ________"
 * Thanks Adwii  J e n o v a  20 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adwii  J e n o v a  20 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Discrimination
I have added more information on the discrimination page about political discrimination. I still think we need to cover liberals but you can probably think of quite a few more political ideologies which have been oppressed. I added information about Anti-Zionism/Anti-Israeli actions in the United States as well as Anti-Communism and Anti-Freemasonry in the United States and during the Holocaust in Europe. Please help me make this a worthwhile section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, i'll take a look.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Autozam Revue
Hello Jenova, I undid many of your changes to Autozam Revue, as you have conflated several generations of the Mazda 121 as sold in the UK. The relevant info on all versions is easy to find at Mazda 121, with links to the corresponding articles. The Revue article should only cover material relating to the "DB" chassis code car produced by Mazda and sold under various names. Thanks,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "is easy to find".
 * Can you point out where exactly i would go for the relevant information since it is far from clear on the disambiguation page you have presented me with.
 * Thanks 82.132.138.156 (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm, I don't know if I am talking to Jenova here, but the "Mazda 121" label has been used for a number of different cars, from the seventies' Cosmo via the Festiva/Pride, Revue, and rebadged Ford Fiesta (Europe only) and in some markets the Demio. The troubles stem from Mazda's haphazard use of the "121" label - but trying to squeeze the UK market info into the poor Autozam Revue article is not only factually incorrect but also causes more confusion. Perhaps a chart of which car was sold as the 121 in each market (and when) would be a good addition to the Mazda 121 entry?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was me but strangely a lot of the edits appear unconstructive from that account.
 * Am i looking at the Ford Fiesta article then?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For some time (1996-2001?) the Fiesta was indeed sold as a Mazda 121 in the UK - this should be clear from the Mazda 121 page. Perhaps you could add relevant material to the Fiesta page instead of at Autozam Revue?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far from clear, it's a mess.
 * I've been making a lot of mistakes lately and a few ill-thought out edits but the Mazda 121 disambiguation page is just a mess.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it a mess? It simply lists the five different cars ever offered as "Mazda 121"s in various markets, without any lies or obscurantisms of any sort. I cannot see what the problem is.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well i didn't mean a mess, just confusing.
 * There's two different articles there someone from the UK could end up on, the Festiva or the Fiesta, so it's not clear.
 * It could be more like the Ford Focus disambig page, that would be better  J e n o v a  20 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that the 121 family tree is complicated is because Mazda has haphazardly used the label on many different cars with different roots. That's the reason one could end up at five different articles (not two), because the label has been applied to five different cars. Blame Mazda, not me - we're simply trying to clarify what a "Mazda 121" is, and in a way that makes sense to readers from all countries. If you think the page could be better organized, of course you may do so, but please keep the rest of the world in mind and not just the British market.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sales figures
I don't think that one month's sales figures in just one market add any value to an article. A whole year's figures, or better still year-on-year and multi-country would be more appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still adding the yearly ones so please don't revert  J e n o v a  20 13:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biker Biker and have reverted the addition of UK-only sales figures for September in the Mini (marque) article. Also agree that annual figures with a breakdown by markets would be useful. That info is probably available on the manufacturers' websites rather than industry sites like the SMMT.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to find in some cases as some manufacturers sites are terrible to use.
 * I agree with the removal on Mini but these figures as i have already pointed out are still being added.
 * Act in good faith Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try and dig out the Mini figures from the BMW corporate site, they might be in the annual report which would make things easier.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the Ford Fiesta page at the bottom to see how far i've got.
 * There's 10 cars on a page so it's taking me a while to add them by month.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just seen the dialogue here: I have previously removed the monthly figures on the Vauxhall Astra page as it appeared far too detailed. As and when you locate yearly figures as noted above for other models, I think that would be more useful. For the Astra page, UK sales makes sense as it was not sold elsewhere, but I worry about future clutter if every country that sold, say, a Fiesta wants an entry for sales figures! Sorry if my Astra edit appears ungrateful - I've reverted and changed to sales for 2010 which I located in Car Magazine. Warren (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then by the same logic you should have no problem with me removing the American sales figures from these articles aswell?
 * Since we're not favouring any country or providing monthly figures then fair is fair right?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some juicy data in these SMMT booklets for UK sales and manufacture should you wish to convert some of your monthly numbers into yearly sales... https://www.smmt.co.uk/reports-publications/industry-data/ Warren (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the site i've been using for the monthly figures, they're very detailed.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Monthly sales figures are not a good idea to include in the article, as this will add waaaayy too much clutter - imagine if we were to add monthly sales results for every market in which the Fiesta was offered? Yearly data can be acceptable for major markets.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, found the conversation which was had some time ago: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27. And yes, I support the removal of monthly sales figures from whatever market.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Slow down
Jenova, a lot of your recent edits are causing controversy. Please discuss before you make such changes because I along with others shouldn't have to watch your edits like a hawk. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of edits.
 * Just there's a problem with adding monthly sales figures for the UK, yet there's monthly figures for North America in a lot of articles.
 * I've agreed to remove both for the yearly ones instead.
 * I gave up on the Mazda 121 aswell.
 * You've actually jumped in after the problem is sorted OSX so there isn't any problem.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, yes there is a problem. I now have to check each edit you make, which I shouldn't have to do. You are causing issues, denying the problem is counterproductive and reinforces why I need to check your edits. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to check every edit i do as some kind of stalking.
 * I agreed to change them to yearly figures so i can do that myself.
 * If you decide to stalk me anyway then i'll consider it Hounding.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel my recent edits were in bad faith or vandalism and you therefore feel the need to check every edit i do then take it to Admin instead, i would be more happy with that than Hounding  J e n o v a  20 09:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine consider it whatever you like, I will continue to check until I am confident you are making good edits that are overwhelmingly satisfactory. It is obvious that others are having similar problems with some of your edits.


 * I also think you'll find WP:Hounding refers to users following others for no other reason than being annoying/harassing. I am simply checking that your edits are okay, nothing more. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever you say, i seriously can't continue pretending to be interested in this conversation currently or discussing how i'm to be stalked  J e n o v a  20 09:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of you're edits are problematic, as evident by the sheer number of them being reverted by others and myself. You can play the victim game all you like and deny any problem but why should others sit back and let you make such counterproductive edits? I have no problems taking this further if you refuse to cooperate and continue to disrupt the encyclopedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never once refused to cooperate, in fact it's the opposite as i said i would sort it.
 * Please do take this to Admin, as i would love to see the argument you try to form against me and your unproductive criticism and threats can be strutinised by more than just me  J e n o v a  20 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Above when you said, "you've actually jumped in after the problem is sorted OSX so there isn't any problem", that's basically a euphemism for "leave me alone, I don't care". Then on my talk page you have written "I was just bringing it up since you all but accused me of a pro-UK bias a couple days back", which comes across as thoughtless and appears to have been said to prove a point. On Mr.chopper's talk page you have been arguing uncooperatively regarding POV. A lot of what you say is written without tact, and while not offensive by any stretch of the imagination, it does come across as rude or overly self-justifying. "Please do take this to Admin", epitomises what I am saying perfectly. You might as well say "I'm untouchable" because that's how is comes across.

So please take a step back, recognise that half a dozen editors have contacted you directly in the last few days with concerns with your edits and try to use the talk page prior to making edits that you envisage could be controversial. That's all I ask. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. We do appreciate your work (I do not want this to be some sort of pile-on), but you might want to take it a little bit easy and also take other editors into consideration.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mr Chopper, i didn't exactly make the edits in bad faith though, didn't already know to use monthly figures instead of yearly ones and didn't add them solely to annoy others  J e n o v a  20 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jenova20

Proper reference formatting
Bare URLs make bad references. Please consider using the cite web, cite news, cite magazine templates which make life much easier for the author and ensure that references are properly formatted and attributed in the references section of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can i have an example to copy and paste?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look in any article - there are loads in the Ford Fiesta article for example. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you can also click on the template links Biker Biker provided, which gives you some more information. What I do though is click on the "Cite" link on the blue bar at the top of the edit window, there's a "template" dropdown there, which gives you all the fields. It might be a gadget, but I think that's there by default these days.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I read some of the first link and gave up trying to follow it.
 * What difference does it make to a reference?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are two versions of the same ref - 1 and 2. Now look at how they appear differently below.

Do you see the benefit? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one is actually readable, i see your point now.
 * Thanks Dave =]  J e n o v a  20 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. More than that though, it gives the reader a lot more information like how old is it, who wrote it, when was it last accessed etc and it also provides much better attribution for the source.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave, i'll put it to use next time  J e n o v a  20 13:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be good practice to go back over all the references you have added to date and convert them. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's over 1600 edits, it could be around 700 websites i'd have to tag like this!
 * Plus, it might be good practice but i won't remember how to do it without copying and pasting so it wouldn't actually be that much use.
 * Isn't there a bot that does this kind of thing?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * After doing it 700 times (less, actually, as other editors such as myself and Typ932 have already repaired many of them) you will know how it works very well. For myself, I made a page of reference books that are in my library and that I therefore use very often. Obviously that particular page is useful only to me, but I often use them as templates as well.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll stick to copying and pasting it.
 * It's easier for me thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)