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!
I'll look at this/comment tomorrow, I've had a long day and I'm feeling particularly knackered! Thanks for letting me know. Jeni(talk)18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, you do not specifically need to place a delete vote - the nomination acts as your delete vote (you wouldn't list it as an article for deletion if you thought it should be kept). Just thought I'd mention that! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a mix of people who make clear their delete position, and those who don't. There is no harm either way as long as its clear, e.g. "as nominator". Jeni(talk)21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments on the 'closed' ones, are just my lamenting of having missed those. As the saying goes "ya snooze, ya loose". GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doctor Who campfire trailer is missing one key element of GA: It is not stable. Any article in the middle of a merger discussion, particularly one forced on it after an AFD, is by definition not stable. Or rather, if it is by some fluke stable, it is not likely to remain stable for long: Either it will be merged away or it will be improved with heavy editing during the course of the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting unless you're prepared to give a real reason[edit]
Mass changing wording on articles to suit your personal preference is not acceptable, if you continue I will take the matter further and seek a block for disruptive editing. Jeni(talk)19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the disruptive editor? I started with a good-faith attempt to correct what I saw as a widespread grammatical error (and dictionary.com agrees with me), and you reverted me dozens of times with no proper explanation. Are you making the claim that "is comprised of" should be considered proper grammar on Wikipedia? Fine--then say so in your edit summary and stop bludgeoning an editor who is trying to improve the quality of our articles. --Doradus (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
