This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jenova20. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your educated guess is wrong. We have a feature here called a user page - they don't make a lot of noise, but should you try them sometimes ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah...hope u didn't take offense then since none was meant.
I should probably try other methods to break the ice in future and make better educated guesses too.
Hi there, Jenova. I just noticed that you added a few warning tags to the top of the article I created, Association of Global Automakers. If you have specific problems with the article now, I would like to help resolve them. Otherwise, I would like to ask you to reconsider the application of some or all of them, for reasons I'll give below. Two of the templates I think are simply inapt, and two would require more information in order to address them:
In particular, the COI tag I believe is unwarranted; I have made every effort to disclose my affiliation with the organization, endeavored to write according to NPOV and sought input from editors at WikiProject Automobiles. My request there remained open for four weeks, and I incorporated feedback from the two editors who responded, before moving the article into the mainspace.
And I strongly believe the warning, "This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information" is especially misapplied. I always try to avoid weasel words and peacock terms and am not aware of any here. Moreover, everything in this article is verified with reliable sources; not every source is online, but the article is the product of careful research. Anything I could not verify has been omitted.
As to the "neutrality" of the article, I presume you've seen the discussion with Mr. Choppers at WikiProject Autos. I added some new information to the article at his request, but regarding certain topics, I searched in vain for reliable sources. Following this, he expressed some generalized dissatisfaction, but offered no specific examples of what could be done to improve it.
Likewise, a similar issue exists regarding whether the article contains "all significant viewpoints"—if there is a significant viewpoint you believe should be added, I would like to help see it represented. My goal for this article is for it to be a well-rounded summary of the topic, not a promotional piece. But without a specific criticism to address, there is little I can do.
Bottom line: like you, I want this article to be a fair, accurate and representative picture of Global Automakers and its role in the industry. I have tried to do this at every step along the way, so I am surprised and a little dismayed to find the article deemed problematic only after I spent several weeks' effort to seek feedback on it. If there are resolvable issues, I'd like to help do so. However, if these tags are placeholders merely representing the possibility of bias, I hope you would agree to remove them. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have replied on the talk page rather than split the conversation in two.
Merry Christmas to you, too. Would it be too much to ask, in the Christmas spirit, that you would assume good faith and reconsider the warning tags...? Well, at least I hope you'll consider my points back on the Global Automakers discussion page; I've just posted a detailed reply. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith does not act as a bribe to allow an unneutral article to exist.
Your last message here reads more of a kind of bribery to let the article exist in current form in good nature.
I have tried to clarify problems with editor actions on "Association of Global Automakers" but when dealing with public personalities, it will be difficult to expect many admins to help much. My thinking is that this situation is a big battle because User:WWB (aka WWB Too) is self-identified as William Beutler (age ~32), a media "Wikipedia expert" and consultant in Washington, D.C. When a person is being paid to talk about Wikipedia, and possibly gaining public fans, then most unpaid volunteers cannot compete with the time that those people have for their causes. I guess the solution would be long-term monitoring of their actions, and their coordinated support for each other, but again I suspect that would be very time-consuming for non-paid editors. This is just a note of "things to ponder" in budgeting our time to confront paid on-wiki lobbyists. Feel free to disregard this note or delete it whenever (I will not keep re-posting it to your talk-page!). -Wikid77 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with paid editors, but there's an obvious bias in this situation that WWB can't see or refuses to acknowledge.
To trawl through paid editors edits would take too long and obviously as you say they have more spare time than us.
At least in the case of WWB he admits his WP:COI, but then shows refusal to accept criticism of his work.
Case by case basis...there's loads more paid editors hidden than there is out in the open, but the rules are for everyone.
Easiest solution would be to block them but that will just keep them from admitting their Conflict of interest.
Your post at WP:LGBT was not neutrally worded and failed to assume good faith of WPChristianity editors. Additionally you are attempting to create a battleground between wikiprojects. You are in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. – Lionel(talk)10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jenova, I saw your comment at WP:LGBT, and I very nearly left the same message. I wholly endorse Lionel here, and suggest that you redact/reword your comment. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for fights, it's a place of collaboration. WormTT· (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that was reliable actually, admittedly i didn't go into too much depth on the site but i did specifically look for a religious reference rather than something that could be easily challenged as biased.
I don't feel i acted in bad faith as at this moment i still don't see why it is an unreliable source and tried to put it as neutral as possible.
Besides, there's well documented evidence of a high risk of suicide and even the leaders of Exodus International have claimed it is impossible to change orientation (and that they can only suppress it) so another source would be easy to find and the section wouldn't be too difficult to reword.
How exactly do you get canvassing from this anyway?
Lionel and I weren't commenting about the subject of the the note on WP:LGBT, but rather the note on WP:LGBT itself. This one to be precise. You suggest that WP:CHRISTIANITY is likely to start a "war" - which sounds like "rallying the troops". The problem is that the this instantly assumes the worst of WP:CHRISTIANITY (against WP:AGF) and promotes fighting atmosphere (against WP:BATTLEGROUND). That's exactly what WP:CANVASS is trying to stop. WormTT· (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right.
Yes i accept that criticism.
I added it because i'm not online as much as i'd like and because ex-gay issues are often subject to edit wars, just as Homosexuals Anonymous is now.
I didn't mean it specifically as that Wikiproject would cause an edit war though, just that it was likely what i added would be challenged/removed when i'm not around to notice.
Better, but not perfect. I'm still not happy with the implication of an edit war with a religious group. I'd have put
I have added in a sentence regarding suicide risk to the lead, along with a reliable source. More eyes would be appreciated at this contentious areas. Thanks
which would be much more neutral. As it happens, I'm not happy with the edit either, so I'm going to get involved there too. WormTT· (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Okedokie
The suicide and harm ex-gay groups cause will be will documented everywhere though so it's important to add.
Even Exodus International (one of the biggest, or THE biggest) has stated that it doesn't work and can only suppress attraction rather than cure it.
Changed it but left the religious bit in since it's true and 99% if not 100% of ex-gay groups are funded by religions and usually use prayer anyway and so any edit war is most likely going to be from that background.
I'm glad you liked my userbox enough to place it on your user page. Someone has nominated it for deletion and I would delighted if you could comment. Regards, Wee Curry Monstertalk08:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, i thought i was in trouble...glad to see that's not the case =]
No problemo, the tide is turning i see and the argument against the userbox is poor at best, and has a foundation like that of a sandcastle Jenova2011:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Careful
This request for help [2] could be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS. You cannot ask at user talkpages for support at contentious discussions from people who you suspect share your ideology. – Lionel(talk)04:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
Viridias cannot vote more than once either so i'm not canvassing. Read the most recent discussion on that page and you can see why this is not going how it should.
Your side is treating it as a vote and offering no policies to support your decision and i will be forced to take this to AFD if that's not going to change.
There's also the most recent vote if you care to read it...That's not entirely appropriate or helpful to discussion of this article.
I've deleted the incorrect redirect. Get the new article to a decent state then discuss a move, don't just blank the redirect. WormTT· (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I meant to list that as A6 too but forgot. I've just asked TexasAndroid if he can delete it too.
I'll add information and sources, i'm just trying to sort out the names out as it was confusing.
Hello Jenova20, I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Magic Hour (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: -db: Already declined once. G6 does not apply to a valid redirect under a longstanding title and ther are editorial souytions for other issues. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I archived the discussion. I'm sure Worm feels strongly about his girlfriend's experience, but that's hardly evidence that the gay pride event discriminates against anyone. For all we know, they might have turned her away for a multitude of reasons other than her sexuality. However, it is my experience that every group discriminates, but this is human nature that we are trying to overcome as individuals. On the contrary, it is not indicative of this group nor is there any solid evidence that LGBT pride events discriminate. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely.
I've only ever heard of one situation like this, where a gay sportsman (John Amechi??) was blocked from going into a gay bar for having earlier caused trouble in a nearby bar. He claimed he hadn't though and i never heard how it worked out in the news.
No offence to Worm at all but i'm sure there's more to his story than we've so far heard...
WP:3RR: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part... It can involve as little as one word." – Lionel(talk)10:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I added to the article twice and revert an edit once. Again, you're interpreting the policy as a limit of 3 edits on a page rather then reverts. You're also claiming a speech mark is a word?
Lionelt you have breached this rule more than me on that page and i believe you to be interpreting it wrongly, stop being hypocritical. Jenova2010:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Those 3 edits substantively and meaningfully changed another editor's work. And "scare quores" are POV. Please see WP:BADEMPHASIS. Regarding my editing, I did not change anyone else's work. It was solely my own work. – Lionel(talk)10:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The section i added to was POV and i tagged it with Quote marks rather than delete it as POV to emphasise this. I've read that section and i still believe you to be interpreting it wrongly in this instance. Jenova2010:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Help:Reverting You are indeed interpreting policy wrong in a way to be menacing and misleading. I have only 1 revert, not 3. Now please call an end to this as there is nothing to "win", no "victory" and it does nothing to help. Jenova2011:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this
I never attract this much drama in real life. o.O
By the way, I've noticed very few Wikipedians use smileys. I think smileys are very helpful in online communication and noticed you use them too. All hail the smiley fans. :) ~Kimelea(talk)19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I use them because they cheer me up and it's the easiest way to show your mood on WP. Sometimes, especially when i message WormTT i'll look at my message through the day and it may look harsh even though i'm trying to be nice in a jokey way.
With a smiley you can even lightly insult someone in a jokey way and they know it's a joke =P
Do it without the smileys and you end up being looked into by admin =[
See what i did there eh? Used all my mood smileys.
Arrgh...like Controversy! I'm unsure why i keep getting that one wrong lately. Thank you for reminding me AV3000. Jenova2023:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding speedy deletes
You tagged Straight Pride for speedy under category A7. Please realize that A7 is only for certain category of items (off the top of my head, it's unnotable people, organizations, and web content), none of which are "slogans". As such, it was an inappropriate call, and would've been denied by any knowledgeable admin. Speedy delete is a very handy tool for situations where it's appropriate, but it's not a tool for all situations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
At the time i read A7 to be organizations and the most appropriate to this article at the time than the others. I never thought it would succeed anyway but instead actually get a better quality debate than currently. Thanks for correcting me Jenova2008:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Android
Ok, if you want me to explain every change I made in that diff, I can do that:
Removed <ref>{{cite web|url=http://phandroid.com/2010/03/30/sharp-iso1-android-smartbook-headed-to-japan/ |title=Sharp ISO1 Android Smartbook Headed To Japan |publisher=Phandroid.com |date=2010-03-30 |accessdate=2012-01-01}}</ref>
There are two references for smartbooks. Since the existence of Android smartbooks is not in dispute, one reference is fine and makes the paragraph easier to edit.
Per the talk page discussion that treadmills aren't in the same category as laptops and netbooks. Also retailers aren't WP:RS.
Misc changes to the text to restore "niche" phrasing.
As explained on talk.
Removed [[portable media player]]s<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.androidauthority.com/top-android-mp3-players-for-2011-36523/ |title=Top Android MP3 Players for 2011 |author=Will G. |publisher=Androidauthority.com |date=December 1, 2011 |accessdate=2012-02-16}}</ref>
Actually this one was probably an error.
On a side note, I get that we disagree about this paragraph and stuff but it would be really nice if you didn't accuse me of only reverting and not discussing since this was my first revert in like three weeks and I've been on the talk page explaining myself the whole time. And you said this this while restoring an edit made by somebody who hasn't touched the talk page at all. Thanks for that. – Steel00:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for getting involved; you've helped me get even more interested. However, I think by feeding the trolls on the talk page, the flames to turn merge material into a full-fledged article have been fanned. Please send me an email and I'll go into further detail. Btw, I just rehauled the stub so that it can be merged in its entirety. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think its not our job to teach consumer things to readers, also putting only negative things is not unbiased, also that kind of accusations should better referenced, now it has also only UK opinions about the subject, if you are making "consumer complaints" section it should have wider perpective about the subject positive / negative things. There is hundreds of car magazines/websites that has all kind of information about car, its very hard to explain all things about subject, so its much more easy to use just encyclopedic facts. Almost same as pickin one measurement of top speed from some magazine and use that as fact. -->Typ932T·C12:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:Weight - this is an encyclopedic fact, every word reliably sourced and neutral. I reworded the original uncorrect statement with the sources as it put the blame on consumers, whereas the sources actually blame renault even with VOSA's support of Renault. I reworded it to show both points in a neutral manner.
The fact that you are pointing out this revision and not the incorrect biased one and your total removal of the section earlier under an unappropriate edit summary shows me you don't want this in the article at all though. Thanks Jenova2012:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides, i did work through it for half a day to get the best wording i could and it's been about a month since then with no complaints, i'll get it double checked. Thanks Jenova2012:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Your "clarification needed" tag on experts is a stumper as the source just says "experts", which could be pretty much anything from garages, smart customers, Renault designers, etc Jenova2013:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll be honest, i don't know crap about adoption and i'm not at the stage to mentor others and doubt i ever will be. That said though, ask questions whenever you like and i'll answer them or direct you to the appropriate policy.
If you're interested Jenova, and Webtv3 signs up to it, I think you'd be able to mentor him. You've come on leaps and bounds since we started together, and I think you've got the skills now. I'd always be around to offer advice if you need it, and there's no need to have a formal process like I do. All you'd need to do is keep an eye on him, offering him suggestions where you see that he can improve and allow him to come to you for questions. It's a great way to learn more about the encyclopedia. If however you don't feel ready to yet, you needn't feel the pressure! WormTT· (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure, i don't think i'd have the time to be honest. I struggle for time with my 4 projects i have and now i have to teach American boy how to ride a bike this weekend. I can stalk and give advice but i'm not to the foster parent standard yet. Plus there's better people to learn from (like people who aren't dyslexic and can understand templates). I'll think it over...Jenova2012:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
first of all i noticed you said a bad word and that will not be helped, second of all if you can not adopt him i will find someone third of all i will check with someone.--184.157.13.121 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but i can't adopt him, i'm still asking for advice myself on a weekly basis. As for the bad word i assume you meant cr*p, in which case i don't consider that a bad word, it's slang for rubbish (garbage for Americans). There's worse words in Wikipedia articles. Good luck with the adoption process, Doctor WormTT is brilliant, which is why there's such a cue for his wisdom. Thanks Jenova2021:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenova. I've recently signed up for Highbeam, and typed in Birmingham Gay Village... came back with 461 results! Seems that some are quite useful... you may want to consider signing up so you to use it! WormTT· (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I had a look and noticed it's only a 7 day trial and i don't intend to pay before i've seen what's around for free. I'm spending tonight uploading pictures for Yumbo Centre and Birmingham Gay Village anyway. Thanks though, i'll check it out when i'm stuck Jenova2009:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, 62 mpg-imp (4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg-US)" is conversion for most used units, this is after all international encyclopedia, so there might be also American readers who would to like to know the fuel consumption of Picasso. -->Typ932T·C17:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, I understand that. I don't know why but I just likened it to rewording petrol to gasoline or Americanization. Thanks Jenova2017:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Protection question
I appreciate your diligence at paying close attention to the Citroën C3 Picasso article, but in my opinion, many of the edits you reverted were either good edits, or at least deserved a rationale. While it may be unfair to expect more from an established editor, it is the case that I have no idea whether the IP knows much about policy. I'd urge you to set a good example by using more descriptive edit summaries, and posting on the talk page. For example, if UK is preferred to United Kingdom, then one of your edits is valid, but I hope you will agree it isn't immediately obviously why UK is better than United Kingdom (and I would have guessed the opposite.)
I'm guessing you "saw" what looked like a lot of disruption; I "saw" a good faith newbie making mostly good edits and a few that could be questioned, but no discussion form either party. As the veteran, I think you should start the discussion. --SPhilbrick(Talk)01:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually changed it to the United Kingdom as the anonymous IP(s) were right about that. What i've been reverting is unexplained removal of content, addition of new content over referenced content and with no new reference, and finally paragraph splitting. Thanks for the message, i'll keep it in mind Jenova2008:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
FAC
Hi Jenova, I left a couple more comments on the FAC, I suggest you withdraw it and submit it for a peer review. At FAC, it's generally expected that an article will meet the criteria, or be very close to it, when it is nominated. The FA criteria (WP:WIAFA) sets a very high bar, I usually try to get at least 3 or 4 people to review my articles before I submit them there. And even when the article is close to featured quality, it can still be a very stressful process. I hope you're not discouraged from trying again though, there's no shame in withdrawing and coming back in a month or two--in fact, very few people succeed on their first try at FAC. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Okedokie
How do i withdraw it? And i'm not upset, i got a bit of constructive criticism to work on and that's exactly what i wanted from it. Although i did expect more to be honest. Still, thanks Jenova2019:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, glad to see that you aren't discouraged. The best way to withdraw would be to ask User:Ian Rose, User:GrahamColm, or User:Ucucha to do it (They're the FA delegates). Not 100% sure, but I think you'd get the quickest response by asking Ian. Hope you get a good peer review, there's sometimes a wait there, but it helps to ask people to review. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just let the FA review fail then since it's already in progress? This way i can badger them into giving more constructive information rather than waiting weeks for PR to do the same? Plus i'm pretty sure i can only have 1 PR at a time and i already have one cued for another article. Thanks for the message, i didn't get discouraged at all, i didn't expect to pass, just to get more eyes on the article so i can add more since im out of ideas. Jenova2021:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I replied at your own page. There was no need to re copy this same message, i saw it the first time and it's still not really funny. Especially since Las Vegas hookers are notoriously cheap Jenova2023:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.
The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."
So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.
As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."
"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "I'm a troll." 68.226.27.33 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well you've chosen your path then. I'm not sure why you enjoy this, not sure i ever will. I suppose it's just a case of "Some people just want to see the world burn"
Yasht101 has kittynapped your kitten! The kitten made them happy and they'd like to give you an enormously massive hug for inadvertently donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap a kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Hi Jenova. I noticed your comment at our mutual friend's talkpage regarding the watchlist bolding - just thought you might like to know that it can be corrected by editing your CSS file. Add the code:
.mw-watched {
border-bottom: 1px dotted #999;
font-weight: normal !important;
}
to that page, and the boldface will be replaced by a nice, subtle dotted underline instead. I'm using it myself, and it's much less obtrusive. Hope that's useful. Yunshui雲水14:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up the Out4Marriage campaign page! First wiki thing I've ever done and I'm grateful to you for sorting out the messy bits. Would you have the time to add more content to it? Good to see you support same sex marriage :) Youtube Adam and James Out4Marriage to see my vid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjswin (talk • contribs) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No problemo, i'm a great admirer of your work =]
I don't know a massive amount about the campaign but i'll take a look. Thanks and don't forget to post at the bottom of a page and sign your posts with 4 of these: ~~~~ Jenova2013:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
be careful
Please don't call User931's contributions vandalism -- the term is reserved for intentionally malicious edits. Use of it will sidetrack any future dispute resolution processes you may choose to engage in. Edit warring or disruptive editing are better terms to describe an editor editing against consensus. Nobody Ent22:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for that. There's an ANI dispute about it and he's basically undoing everything he's done lately (which doesn't look good) and sanitized his talk page to remove all the warnings he has had. Apologies Jenova2022:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, volunteers at dispute resolution boards are adept at reading page histories so removal of warnings doesn't matter. Nobody Ent22:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jenova. Thought I'd leave you a message to suggest that you don't keep bringing things back from the archives at ANI. I know it says you can, but if it keeps getting archived, it means that administrators have looked at it and not seen anything actionable. In fact, I don't know why you went to ANI in the first place - it's not somewhere I suggest people go as it's a place where the complainer is as likely to suffer overharsh sanctions as the complainee. If you look back through the dispute resolution course, there were a few different places you could go. Either way, I've closed the thread at ANI. Nothing's going to happen there. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing's happening anyway. I've unwatched the pages associated with the user, he's someone elses problem. Seriously can't be arsed when it's this much trouble to get a third opinion on another editors conduct.
The RfC is progressing reasonably - there's actual discussion going on there, there's only a few people talking so saying "everyone agrees" isn't helpful, but at least some sort of consensus should come through. Your RfC topic should have been more neutral though, it was basically complaining about the editor, not about his points. In any case, if you're moving on, I think that's a good idea. Enjoy the cars :) WormTT(talk) 09:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to complain about his conduct. Like removing warnings and ignoring them, edit warring, going over 3 reverts in 24 hours, etc. You were barely involved as i tried to sort it myself where possible...and you still became the most useful person to have around.
There's a specific notice board to complain about editwarring - WP:ANEW, which deals with 3RR sharply. However, it takes 2 to edit war. As for removing and ignoring warnings, he's allowed to do that - specifically per WP:BLANKING. Hope you have a good day despite this. WormTT(talk) 09:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, i realise he's allowed to do it and i admitted fault too for playing his baiting game but i seriously got more response from the last vandal i dealt with than this guy and i've got more help from you in 10 minutes than from 2 weeks at the noticeboard.
Especially since the difference between Santa Baby and Santa Baby 2 is very vague. What do you think? Thanks Jenova2010:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the difference in subject matter between Santa Baby and Santa Baby 2 isn't very obvious by just reading those two article names. But I disagree that parenthetical disambiguation supports renaming Santa Baby to either Santa Baby (music) or (song) though. I disagree because I think that the song is the primary topic, and as such, I think that a disambiguating term is unnecessary. This is mentioned in the first bullet at the section of policy I linked at the end of my post above. I hope that makes my train of thought a bit clearer. If not, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Helpful point, but from the names alone it's not at all clear and the article Santa Baby is only about different people who have covered the same song. Any suggestions? Thanks Jenova2009:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I was about to suggest bringing it up on the talk page, but it appears you already did that. :) Maybe others will have thoughts/opinions on the matter they will share. I suggest we wait a few days and see if anyone else responds. If not, another option is bringing it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs for more input if desired.--Rockfang (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I've asked the Wikiproject to respond to get a few responses. Thanks very much Rockfang and have a nice day Jenova2009:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
