User talk:Jenova20

You found my talk page so feel free to leave me a message! I'm dyslexic so if i don't do something properly please let me know without biting. Thanks!

HOW'S MY EDITING?

Please review me!

Cleanup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_pages_needing_factual_verification

Citroen 2CV

Create a table of yearly production figures (worldwide) from this reference for the Citroen 2CV article.

• http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/2cv/production.html

ANI etiquette

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. Worm^TT(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.

I'll stick to cars. You did the right thing Dave. Thanks Jenova20 08:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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 :) Worm^TT(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.

I'll try anyway. Have a nice day and thanks Jenova20 09:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(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.

Still, i'd like to put it behind me and move on. Thanks Jenova20 09:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenova20. You have new messages at Swifty's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swifty*^talk 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your recent help, you've been fantastic! WormTT(talk) 07:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You only have to ask Jenova20 08:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenova20. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenova20. You have new messages at Swifty's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swifty*^talk 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia

Hi, Jenova. I'm wondering what you'd think about trying a different approach here. Suppose the several of us who keep finding ourselves drawn into the discussion were to make a conscious decision to stop responding, say, for a month and give the editor in question every possibility of having an unimpeded, undistracted window of opportunity to look for the evidence we keep requesting. If a month goes by and no evidence is presented, I think we can safely label the discussion closed per consensus. Any renewed, unsupported allegations after that time could be dealt with appropriately, should that be necessary. Clearly the way we're going about things now isn't working, and this cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely. I'd like to see something approaching a happy ending for everyone involved, but my crystal ball is forecasting something else entirely the way things are developing. Obviously, my idea could be thwarted by various circumstances beyond anyone's control, such as disruption to the article itself, but I think it might be worth a try. If you agree, we can run this by the other editors who keep responding and see what they think. Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (P.S. I'll be offline for the next 6–8 hours, but there's no rush. Please just consider it.)

Hi Rivertorch, i greatly respect your opinion. You work on a lot of articles i have looked over and share an interest in and i've learned a lot just from reading your edits when i find them.

That being said i think you're exactly right on this...but...like you said, we'll have to be careful we don't give them free reign to band together with more deniers to make sweeping changes unimpeded.

Thanks and have a nice day Jenova20 09:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we can ask an administrator to look at this. I feel like we are dealing with someone who just wants to argue. I want to work on actually improving different sections but I feel it's rather pointless when this is going on. Insomesia (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can support that decision quite easily. He's picking and choosing which policies he understands and wants to follow. I'll support admin action if it goes that far. Thanks and have a nice day Jenova20 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if no administrators are aware of it already. Unfortunately, the admin toolbelt doesn't have a magic bullet to deal with it. Since the article isn't being disrupted, only the talk page, and there's been neither edit warring nor blatant personal attacks, there really isn't a bright-line rule to enforce. If we try the "ignore for a month" approach and it doesn't work, then there are two or three potential options, but we'd need to proceed carefully. All too often, there's collateral damage in this sort of situation. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll draft some language to add to the talk page tomorrow. It's important, I think, to be upfront about what we're doing. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what harm it could do. Especially since after 3 months all we've established is that the other side has no intention of providing any references.

Thanks and have a nice day/evening Jenova20 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think giving the group a rest and allowing the editor in question to bang away at their keyboard until carpal sets in is a good strategy. But is a month long enough? What about 6 months? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the arguing has already dragged on for 3 months and now it's finally subsided...for now. Rivertorch do good! Rivertorch do very good! =] Jenova20 23:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article with parenthetical disambiguation

Howdy. Recently you made this article move. I have reverted you. In my experience, parenthetical disambiguation isn't used unless there are two articles on subjects with the same name. Examples of this are Star Trek (novel) and Star Trek (film). This is discussed here.--Rockfang (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I figured i would be supported there since there's:

• Santa Baby (Gimme, Gimme, Gimme)
• Santa Baby
• Santa Baby (film)
• Santa Baby 2

I would have thought Parenthetical disambiguation supports changes from Santa Baby -> Santa Baby (music) or Santa Baby (song) and Santa Baby 2 to Santa Baby 2 (film) to clear this all up.

Especially since the difference between Santa Baby and Santa Baby 2 is very vague. What do you think? Thanks Jenova20 10:52, 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 Jenova20 09:04, 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 Jenova20 09:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

You commented on a question about renaming articles recently and used the phrase "slave-name 'homosexuality'". I'm unclear on what that meant. Could you elaborate? -- Avanu (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh that was purely personal opinion. If you know much about LGBT culture or LGBT history you will notice that homosexuality is still a negative. It is the scientific name but it's only used in either a medical/science context or a negative one. LGBT very very very rarely use the word themselves because of this.

If you generally see the word homosexual/homosexuality used then it's either news from a non-LGBT source (non-pink media like BBC for example), a religious themed piece, or something negative.

The word has become to LGBT culture through the riots and prides over the decaded what Negro, the other "N" word, and any other racial slurs have become. Terms avoided because they are unflattering, generally used to offend, or just to rant. LGBT have only socially reclaimed the slang terms they can use playfully; faggot, queen, queer, homo, etc. Homosexual is still a rare occurence to hear in a gaybourhood.

Hows that for a reply? Thanks and have a good evening Jenova20 20:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Its interesting. I didn't see it being viewed that way, but it is good to be aware. -- Avanu (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Even 250 years after emancipation slavery is still a sensitive issue for Black people and we do not see parallels between it and homosexuality so I would avoid "slave" metaphors so as to not offend us. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you need some history lessons as multiple people have compared the fight for LGBT rights as the modern civil rights movement and LGB were actively persecuted, enslaved and executed by the Germans in the 1940s, just as the Jews were. They also have the punishment of forced labour and imprisonment in a few countries even today and are still put to death in some, but no that's fine, you are unaffected by that and have freedom to spout nonsense on my talk page.

And your list of concerns aren't really any of my concerns Lionelt. So thanks but no thanks

I suggest you read [1] and Lavender Scare to expand your mind a bit. Jenova20 08:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OMG!

Look at my talk page I am being accused of posting spam on Tomorrow (The Cranberries song) by posting this link and if notice all the pages we have worked on including Sparks Fly have been brought into this and it is claimed that we posted spam links. LOL! Swifty*^talk 05:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind I see what the problem is now they were falsely accusing me of spamming when I was actually double sourcing. Swifty*^talk 05:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They should be more careful. Especially towards someone doing such good work =P

Why have you retired? You shouldn't give up Swifty! Jenova20 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenova20. You have new messages at Swifty's talk page.
Message added 06:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swifty*^talk 06:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at TheSpecialUser's talk page. →TSU ^tp* 08:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

You appear to have made a mistake here - I reverted the edit of an IP which deleted some text, putting it back in. But you reverted me which results in the text being lost again. --112.134.145.118 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

YFixed - thank you so much for letting me know. Thanks again and have a nice sunday! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we just undid my edit at the same time and so your edit went over mine? Either way though it's fixed now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of Plagiarism

Part of this edit [2] is copied verbatim from a copyrighted source and constitutes plagiarism. This violates WP:COPYVIO. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)