User talk:Jeni/Archives/2017/January
Archives
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived.
2008
Aug - Dec
2009
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2010
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2011
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2012
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2013
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2014
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2015
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2016
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2017
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2018
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2019
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun
Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
Why are you here?
- You are hacked off because I nominated one of your articles for deletion - This isn't the place to discuss it, I strongly suggest taking it up in the appropriate AfD discussion or on the articles talk page.
- You are replying to a message I left on your talk page - Don't reply here! Reply on your talk page, I'll be watching!
- You want to discuss an article - If it is an article I have previously contributed to, it is likely to be on my watchlist, consider starting a discussion there instead, it may generate more discussion from outside parties.
- You think I'm harassing you - Unlikely. I have over 20,000 pages on my watchlist, including every UK place, road, bus operator and bus route (and most rail articles). If you edit the same group of articles, we are bound to bump into each other!
- You actually wish to talk to me - Welcome! You are in the right place, start a new discussion at the bottom of the page!
The talk page
BRD[edit]
Do you know what WP:BRD stands for? To me, it means that when you make a bold edit which is reverted, you don't bring it back but discuss on the talk. I find it helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Only helpful when the editor in question engages in discussion. The user in question doesn't seem to like communication. Jeni (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I disagree, I think it's a good concept in any situation. How do you know an editor will communicate if you don't even try but revert back? Even if one editor doesn't communicate, there are others watching an article who may say something, but rather in a civil talk page discussion than in an exchange of edit summaries which is not transparent, especially for newcomers. You can start to be communicative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing discussion on the articles talk page, which Gareth has declined to take part in, and has reverted anything added to his own talk page. So yes, we do know if said editor is going to communicate. I'm finding that you're making presumptions here without looking at the situation in detail? Jeni (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Define ongoing, all just of today, two participants, - not what I'd call consensus. Won't say more in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now I'm not even sure what you're on about. An editor decided to make valid changes, Gareth decided to revert and warn the editor for vandalism (the changes certainly weren't vandalism) for reasons I can only presume are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rather than enter into meaningful discussion as offered by the original editor, Gareth ignored all that and decided to edit war. Quite how you're coming to the conclusion that anyone other than Gareth is the problem I have no idea! Jeni (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Define ongoing, all just of today, two participants, - not what I'd call consensus. Won't say more in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing discussion on the articles talk page, which Gareth has declined to take part in, and has reverted anything added to his own talk page. So yes, we do know if said editor is going to communicate. I'm finding that you're making presumptions here without looking at the situation in detail? Jeni (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I disagree, I think it's a good concept in any situation. How do you know an editor will communicate if you don't even try but revert back? Even if one editor doesn't communicate, there are others watching an article who may say something, but rather in a civil talk page discussion than in an exchange of edit summaries which is not transparent, especially for newcomers. You can start to be communicative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)