This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I Steven shearer wish to talk to a witch and one day become a great majik warlock and help all nice witches so they can live without pain or death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven binni shearer ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will venture that, while I can't see into your head, I may feel worse about mine than you did about yours, because I was already knowledgeable about what constituted notability, or so I thought, and my articles were probably more developed (although there weren't as many). Who knows, though. I just need to ponder for a while. Tezero ( talk) 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
So Czar told me you are waiting for more input from me in the review. I don't exactly know what else there is to say. I'm still skeptical on the Development section but I'm mostly concerned about the Plot more so. It's kinda how Tezero put it: "has a thin musk of a game's back cover or some other first-party material". GamerPro64 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a copy edit for the plot section and a minor one to the gameplay section. I've also expanded the lead and polished some parts of the article. What do you think? Does any more work needs to be put into it? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jumping Flash! for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 ( talk) 00:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork, thanks for keeping the GA reassessment open. I've hopefully addressed all of your points you made, just wondering if you could take another look and see if there are any more concerns? I can address them quicker this time! Thanks, ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winchester you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Winchester you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Winchester for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Winchester you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Winchester for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll need support in doing so though! Hey, any chance you could review Esbjerg for me? Caponer's absent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm currently working on Odense with Ipigott and Rosiestep, and also Varanasi but it would be good to work on another English town again gradually. Welcome back BTW!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jaguar, with your help on this one and for assisting in improving it up to GA. One of these days, we should try and revive some of those red links from China! You're doing a great job. Hope to see around again soon.-- Ipigott ( talk) 21:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jaguar, remember to update the list pages like this and dat whenever you promote an article!..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oreo Priest talk 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jaguar. Let's move forward with cleaning up the mess you've made. Here is your table from the ANI page.
UK related | Non-UK (reverted) | Ambiguous (not reverted) |
---|---|---|
Jaguar F-Type | Suriname | Television |
Kenya | Sudan | Suez Canal |
Olympic-class ocean liner | Spain | English language |
Papa New Guiana | Russia | World War I |
RMS Titanic | North Korea | |
Montserrat | South Korea | |
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | Japan | |
Anguilla | Poland | |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | Ukraine | |
Northamptonshire | Brazil | |
Bahamas | Belgium | |
Grenada | Computer | |
Guyana | Personal computer | |
British Raj | Iraq | |
George Town, Cayman Islands | Syria | |
Bermuda | Iran | |
Castries | Israel | |
Saint Lucia | Italy | |
Cayman Islands | Argentina | |
Sierra Leone | Suez Crisis |
Untouched:
I have put in bold all of the "UK-related" pages for which the conversion was not legitimate. You must return all of the "Untouched", all of the "Ambiguous", and all of the illegitimate/bold "UK-related" pages to their original English variant, and do so without destroying any edits made since your use of the script. Please report on you progress here; I will be watching this page. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 07:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's just that Iridescent somehow managed to come on my talk page after months of not editing on his account, takes quotes from my user page and uses them in smarmy and aggravating manner with his only intention of causing trouble with me. I hate snobbery so much.Yes, the snobbery of wanting the right people to have the credit is infuriatingly elitist, isn't it? People who single-handedly wrote or worked up an article to featured status often say modestly that they "contributed" to it. But contributions in the form of a handful of copyedits, as you did at Kennet and Avon Canal, still aren't quite the same thing. [1] There's nothing wrong with them, but they're tiny and rather trivial and have nothing to do with getting the article to featured status, so why list it on your page in a way that suggests you had something to do with that? You're basking in reflected glory. Deflecting on to Iridescent's editing pattern (what's it your business?) hardly makes you look better. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
[Copied from my talk page - Oreo Priest talk 14:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)]
Hi Oreo, I thought I'd leave you this message on your talk page rather than mine as my talk page is getting cluttered by others! I've been doing some research into what languages the Commonwealth Realms (the remaining articles you have listed onto my table) use. To make it short, I have started with Kenya (even though it isn't a realm). Kenya is bilingual, as stated in Languages of Kenya however English is its first language. This source states that British English is used by teachers in Kenya, so unless a consensus is achieved perhaps we should leave Kenya in British English? The document is quite long so don't worry about reading it all. I will let you know when I find more about the remaining articles that are outstanding. Thank you. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Guyana uses British English. "English is the main language, and Guyana is the only English speaking country in South America, though many people in neighboring Suriname speak it. British English is taught in school and used in Government and business." Language of Guyana. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Papua New Guinea uses a lot of languages with English being the official but spoken by 1-2% of the population [2]. There is no evidence that UK or Australian spelling is used, but since it was a British colony I would leave it as British English instead of American English on the basis of strong national ties (the US doesn't have any ties here). What do you think on this one? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:*Australian Defence Force (Australian English)
I don't like the idea of leaving Commonwealth Realms (essentially British countries in cultural aspects) in American English - it doesn't make any sense? US spelling has no ties to these countries at all, it makes sense to either leave the ones I mentioned above in either British of Jamaican English? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 16:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a reminder that you aren't finished with the cleanup, and that I haven't forgotten. If you do not address the outstanding issues, you will be blocked. Oreo Priest talk 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
More egregiously, you have never even so much as addressed the Ambiguous (not reverted) column, and further Antigua and Barbuda is untouched beyond a protest that it shouldn't be changed. I made you a crystal clear list, so it shouldn't have been so hard to see if you "missed anything". Address all of these at once. Oreo Priest talk 10:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being bullied into reverting them into the wrong language with the alternative of being blockedNo, you are being forced to undo a whole host of illegitimate, policy violating unilateral edits that virtually everyone who saw agreed were egregiously wrong. I even offered you the option of providing proof, but you have not been able to in most cases. (No, the article on the Labour Party is not sufficient).
It doesn't feel right for a Commonwealth Realm to be in American EnglishHopefully in the future you will substitute this logic with evidence and proper discussion instead of unilateral action. Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I will see what the community thinks about English Language.Absolutely not. You will revert it at once and then you can begin a discussion. You don't get to pick and choose and stonewall when you were the one who made the illegitimate, policy violating unilateral edits in the first place. You don't get to wrongly change the status quo and then force others to come up with a consensus to overturn it. Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted them
How can you say with a straight face that you restored all the content deleted in
the edit I pointed out to you with
your most recent edit? It is simply exhausting trying to double-check everything you've done to see if you're misleading us or lying to us; more often than not you are. For this same reason, I'd like you to actually provide the diffs that show that Suez Canal and Television have been fixed.
Oreo Priest
talk 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
At any rate, you're done now, much to both of our relief. If I were you, I would not make any linguistic changes to any articles without first obtaining a clear consensus, even if to you it's clear which one it should be. That way we can both avoid this sort of unpleasant headache in the future. Happy editing! Oreo Priest talk 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
About two days ago you reverted my edit to the Russia article, where I updated the population to the latest known number, based on the official sources we've always used. I have been making similar edits for years, so it'd be good to hear what made you RV it.
Additionally, I will now insert it back, and going forward would appreciate a discussion before any further attempts to revert sourced data.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jaguar,
is there some good reason why you replace {{ Use British English}} with the less obviously named {{ EngvarB}} in articles that obviously should use British English (like Nottingham)? To me, it seems like {{ EngvarB}} is only for articles where British English should be used, but should not be called British English (say, articles about topics that Irish nationalists care about deeply). If you don't have a good reason, could you revert your template changes? Thank you, — Kusma ( t· c) 08:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The community has reached a consensus on banning you for using the specific scripts you were using. The final consensus states, "... be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks." I have left additional comments on the ANI thread. Please remember that this is a specific ban and not a block; you are still free to edit, just not with those scripts. This message was left per policy. Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 06:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
References
I saw you reverted my edits on these three articles where I updated the HDI info. Wondering if you plan to restore that info or if I should do it myself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, an issue recently came up with Talk:Gasketball: the "GA" template that you inserted there had an incorrect field, "subtopic", which caused the article to be uncategorized. The correct field is "topic" (yes, it makes a difference!). In addition, you were retaining two fields from the "GA nominee" template that are invalid in "GA": "status" and "note".
I've gone back and also corrected two earlier GAs you reviewed: Talk:Development of Fez, which had the same issues as Gasketball, and Talk:Aarhus, which correctly used the "topic" field, but also included the two invalid fields mentioned above. I haven't yet checked further back to see whether your earlier reviews left the same template issues.
Rather than edit the "GA nominee" template into a "GA" template, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Passing recommends using the supplied "GA" template (copy/paste), and then copy/pasting the subtopic name from "GA nominee" into the topic of "GA" and also filling in the "page" field. Once that's done, the old "GA nominee" template is deleted, and the changes saved.
I see you are reviewing another GA nomination, so this should come in handy if the article passes all the GA criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the warm welcome. I've been on other wikis before, so I know how to use them, but thanks for the advice. :) Gameditor Talk 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
BarsofGold ( talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please take care to add attribution to articles you copy from elsewhere on Wikipedia, even if you are the main writer of the text. The article St. Mary's Church, Bentworth was a copy from Bentworth, with text written by others as well (e.g. Dr. Blofeld), so you should have followed the guidance in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I have now added the necessary backlink in an edit summary to the article, but normally this should be included immediately. If you are aware of other instances where you also didn't include attribution, please do so.
The article also needs work to get the referencing correct; you copy pasted the text, but that meant that the pointer to some named references has gone missing, as evidenced by the big red error at the bottom. Fram ( talk) 11:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I've traced that you are the one who nominated Benedict Cumberbatch article to GA status. I have just some concerns as the edit made by Lady Lotus drastically changed the lead paragraphs. She/He has listed credits even with no known notability/importance which made the paragraph even more like plain list of credits. I have, from the GA nomination history, found out that this is a major concern for the article.
The user has also deleted the educational attainment of the subject for no known reason. I object to this edit because the degrees he has attained are relevant to the profession he has now. They're are there to reflect the training he has as an actor.
Another concern is the deletion of "voice artist" in his profession. Cumberbatch's voice work exists outside radio as he has done dubbing, rehearsed reading, commercials, voice overs, etc so merely labeling him as a radio actor is not only insufficient but incorrect.
I sincerely hope you attend to these concerns. I have already written to the user in question and has also posted these concerns in the talk page of the article. I am going to revert the edits done by Lady Lotus for now. Thank you again and have a nice day! GreenEcoFashion ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Woodspring Priory. The links to the British Newspaper Archive work for me - I got a free subscription from Wikipedia:BNA you might find it useful for Hants articles as well.— Rod talk 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout 2097 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jaguar, how's it going! I saw your work on some articles (great job btw), and I thought you'd have exeperience telling which articles are good for GA/FA. I'm currently working on a draft for the Sleeping Dogs (video game) development section (currently on ga review). Me and Tezero will be taking it to FA, but I need the most feedback I can get on the draft. Is there any way you can take a look at my draft ( User:URDNEXT/sandbox) and see if it's good enough for FA? I'm structuring it similarly to Batman Arkham Asylum. Thanks! URDNEXT ( talk) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article PlayStation (console) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The article PlayStation (console) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:PlayStation (console) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 2097 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout 2097 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jumping Flash! 2 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article British Raj you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby ( talk) 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The article PlayStation (console) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:PlayStation (console) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout 64 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 13:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 64 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout 64 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the amount of work that remains for the Wipeout (and Jumping Flash) articles (the open GANs), I don't think they can be brought up to snuff within a GAN-sized time period. I recommended having them partially rewritten to mind the actual sources and copyedited and whatnot by others before having them come back for the GAN check. Would you be all right with my closing them? I wanted to check with you and make sure you were okay with that before I did so. czar ♔ 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout (video game) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout (video game) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jumping Flash! 2 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 2097 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout 2097 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 64 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout 64 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I Steven shearer wish to talk to a witch and one day become a great majik warlock and help all nice witches so they can live without pain or death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven binni shearer ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will venture that, while I can't see into your head, I may feel worse about mine than you did about yours, because I was already knowledgeable about what constituted notability, or so I thought, and my articles were probably more developed (although there weren't as many). Who knows, though. I just need to ponder for a while. Tezero ( talk) 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
So Czar told me you are waiting for more input from me in the review. I don't exactly know what else there is to say. I'm still skeptical on the Development section but I'm mostly concerned about the Plot more so. It's kinda how Tezero put it: "has a thin musk of a game's back cover or some other first-party material". GamerPro64 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a copy edit for the plot section and a minor one to the gameplay section. I've also expanded the lead and polished some parts of the article. What do you think? Does any more work needs to be put into it? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jumping Flash! for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 ( talk) 00:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork, thanks for keeping the GA reassessment open. I've hopefully addressed all of your points you made, just wondering if you could take another look and see if there are any more concerns? I can address them quicker this time! Thanks, ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winchester you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Winchester you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Winchester for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Winchester you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Winchester for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll need support in doing so though! Hey, any chance you could review Esbjerg for me? Caponer's absent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm currently working on Odense with Ipigott and Rosiestep, and also Varanasi but it would be good to work on another English town again gradually. Welcome back BTW!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jaguar, with your help on this one and for assisting in improving it up to GA. One of these days, we should try and revive some of those red links from China! You're doing a great job. Hope to see around again soon.-- Ipigott ( talk) 21:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jaguar, remember to update the list pages like this and dat whenever you promote an article!..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oreo Priest talk 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jaguar. Let's move forward with cleaning up the mess you've made. Here is your table from the ANI page.
UK related | Non-UK (reverted) | Ambiguous (not reverted) |
---|---|---|
Jaguar F-Type | Suriname | Television |
Kenya | Sudan | Suez Canal |
Olympic-class ocean liner | Spain | English language |
Papa New Guiana | Russia | World War I |
RMS Titanic | North Korea | |
Montserrat | South Korea | |
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | Japan | |
Anguilla | Poland | |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | Ukraine | |
Northamptonshire | Brazil | |
Bahamas | Belgium | |
Grenada | Computer | |
Guyana | Personal computer | |
British Raj | Iraq | |
George Town, Cayman Islands | Syria | |
Bermuda | Iran | |
Castries | Israel | |
Saint Lucia | Italy | |
Cayman Islands | Argentina | |
Sierra Leone | Suez Crisis |
Untouched:
I have put in bold all of the "UK-related" pages for which the conversion was not legitimate. You must return all of the "Untouched", all of the "Ambiguous", and all of the illegitimate/bold "UK-related" pages to their original English variant, and do so without destroying any edits made since your use of the script. Please report on you progress here; I will be watching this page. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 07:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's just that Iridescent somehow managed to come on my talk page after months of not editing on his account, takes quotes from my user page and uses them in smarmy and aggravating manner with his only intention of causing trouble with me. I hate snobbery so much.Yes, the snobbery of wanting the right people to have the credit is infuriatingly elitist, isn't it? People who single-handedly wrote or worked up an article to featured status often say modestly that they "contributed" to it. But contributions in the form of a handful of copyedits, as you did at Kennet and Avon Canal, still aren't quite the same thing. [1] There's nothing wrong with them, but they're tiny and rather trivial and have nothing to do with getting the article to featured status, so why list it on your page in a way that suggests you had something to do with that? You're basking in reflected glory. Deflecting on to Iridescent's editing pattern (what's it your business?) hardly makes you look better. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
[Copied from my talk page - Oreo Priest talk 14:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)]
Hi Oreo, I thought I'd leave you this message on your talk page rather than mine as my talk page is getting cluttered by others! I've been doing some research into what languages the Commonwealth Realms (the remaining articles you have listed onto my table) use. To make it short, I have started with Kenya (even though it isn't a realm). Kenya is bilingual, as stated in Languages of Kenya however English is its first language. This source states that British English is used by teachers in Kenya, so unless a consensus is achieved perhaps we should leave Kenya in British English? The document is quite long so don't worry about reading it all. I will let you know when I find more about the remaining articles that are outstanding. Thank you. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Guyana uses British English. "English is the main language, and Guyana is the only English speaking country in South America, though many people in neighboring Suriname speak it. British English is taught in school and used in Government and business." Language of Guyana. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Papua New Guinea uses a lot of languages with English being the official but spoken by 1-2% of the population [2]. There is no evidence that UK or Australian spelling is used, but since it was a British colony I would leave it as British English instead of American English on the basis of strong national ties (the US doesn't have any ties here). What do you think on this one? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:*Australian Defence Force (Australian English)
I don't like the idea of leaving Commonwealth Realms (essentially British countries in cultural aspects) in American English - it doesn't make any sense? US spelling has no ties to these countries at all, it makes sense to either leave the ones I mentioned above in either British of Jamaican English? ☠ Jag uar ☠ 16:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a reminder that you aren't finished with the cleanup, and that I haven't forgotten. If you do not address the outstanding issues, you will be blocked. Oreo Priest talk 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
More egregiously, you have never even so much as addressed the Ambiguous (not reverted) column, and further Antigua and Barbuda is untouched beyond a protest that it shouldn't be changed. I made you a crystal clear list, so it shouldn't have been so hard to see if you "missed anything". Address all of these at once. Oreo Priest talk 10:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being bullied into reverting them into the wrong language with the alternative of being blockedNo, you are being forced to undo a whole host of illegitimate, policy violating unilateral edits that virtually everyone who saw agreed were egregiously wrong. I even offered you the option of providing proof, but you have not been able to in most cases. (No, the article on the Labour Party is not sufficient).
It doesn't feel right for a Commonwealth Realm to be in American EnglishHopefully in the future you will substitute this logic with evidence and proper discussion instead of unilateral action. Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I will see what the community thinks about English Language.Absolutely not. You will revert it at once and then you can begin a discussion. You don't get to pick and choose and stonewall when you were the one who made the illegitimate, policy violating unilateral edits in the first place. You don't get to wrongly change the status quo and then force others to come up with a consensus to overturn it. Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted them
How can you say with a straight face that you restored all the content deleted in
the edit I pointed out to you with
your most recent edit? It is simply exhausting trying to double-check everything you've done to see if you're misleading us or lying to us; more often than not you are. For this same reason, I'd like you to actually provide the diffs that show that Suez Canal and Television have been fixed.
Oreo Priest
talk 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
At any rate, you're done now, much to both of our relief. If I were you, I would not make any linguistic changes to any articles without first obtaining a clear consensus, even if to you it's clear which one it should be. That way we can both avoid this sort of unpleasant headache in the future. Happy editing! Oreo Priest talk 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
About two days ago you reverted my edit to the Russia article, where I updated the population to the latest known number, based on the official sources we've always used. I have been making similar edits for years, so it'd be good to hear what made you RV it.
Additionally, I will now insert it back, and going forward would appreciate a discussion before any further attempts to revert sourced data.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jaguar,
is there some good reason why you replace {{ Use British English}} with the less obviously named {{ EngvarB}} in articles that obviously should use British English (like Nottingham)? To me, it seems like {{ EngvarB}} is only for articles where British English should be used, but should not be called British English (say, articles about topics that Irish nationalists care about deeply). If you don't have a good reason, could you revert your template changes? Thank you, — Kusma ( t· c) 08:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The community has reached a consensus on banning you for using the specific scripts you were using. The final consensus states, "... be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks." I have left additional comments on the ANI thread. Please remember that this is a specific ban and not a block; you are still free to edit, just not with those scripts. This message was left per policy. Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 06:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
References
I saw you reverted my edits on these three articles where I updated the HDI info. Wondering if you plan to restore that info or if I should do it myself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, an issue recently came up with Talk:Gasketball: the "GA" template that you inserted there had an incorrect field, "subtopic", which caused the article to be uncategorized. The correct field is "topic" (yes, it makes a difference!). In addition, you were retaining two fields from the "GA nominee" template that are invalid in "GA": "status" and "note".
I've gone back and also corrected two earlier GAs you reviewed: Talk:Development of Fez, which had the same issues as Gasketball, and Talk:Aarhus, which correctly used the "topic" field, but also included the two invalid fields mentioned above. I haven't yet checked further back to see whether your earlier reviews left the same template issues.
Rather than edit the "GA nominee" template into a "GA" template, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Passing recommends using the supplied "GA" template (copy/paste), and then copy/pasting the subtopic name from "GA nominee" into the topic of "GA" and also filling in the "page" field. Once that's done, the old "GA nominee" template is deleted, and the changes saved.
I see you are reviewing another GA nomination, so this should come in handy if the article passes all the GA criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the warm welcome. I've been on other wikis before, so I know how to use them, but thanks for the advice. :) Gameditor Talk 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
BarsofGold ( talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please take care to add attribution to articles you copy from elsewhere on Wikipedia, even if you are the main writer of the text. The article St. Mary's Church, Bentworth was a copy from Bentworth, with text written by others as well (e.g. Dr. Blofeld), so you should have followed the guidance in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I have now added the necessary backlink in an edit summary to the article, but normally this should be included immediately. If you are aware of other instances where you also didn't include attribution, please do so.
The article also needs work to get the referencing correct; you copy pasted the text, but that meant that the pointer to some named references has gone missing, as evidenced by the big red error at the bottom. Fram ( talk) 11:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I've traced that you are the one who nominated Benedict Cumberbatch article to GA status. I have just some concerns as the edit made by Lady Lotus drastically changed the lead paragraphs. She/He has listed credits even with no known notability/importance which made the paragraph even more like plain list of credits. I have, from the GA nomination history, found out that this is a major concern for the article.
The user has also deleted the educational attainment of the subject for no known reason. I object to this edit because the degrees he has attained are relevant to the profession he has now. They're are there to reflect the training he has as an actor.
Another concern is the deletion of "voice artist" in his profession. Cumberbatch's voice work exists outside radio as he has done dubbing, rehearsed reading, commercials, voice overs, etc so merely labeling him as a radio actor is not only insufficient but incorrect.
I sincerely hope you attend to these concerns. I have already written to the user in question and has also posted these concerns in the talk page of the article. I am going to revert the edits done by Lady Lotus for now. Thank you again and have a nice day! GreenEcoFashion ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Woodspring Priory. The links to the British Newspaper Archive work for me - I got a free subscription from Wikipedia:BNA you might find it useful for Hants articles as well.— Rod talk 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout 2097 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jaguar, how's it going! I saw your work on some articles (great job btw), and I thought you'd have exeperience telling which articles are good for GA/FA. I'm currently working on a draft for the Sleeping Dogs (video game) development section (currently on ga review). Me and Tezero will be taking it to FA, but I need the most feedback I can get on the draft. Is there any way you can take a look at my draft ( User:URDNEXT/sandbox) and see if it's good enough for FA? I'm structuring it similarly to Batman Arkham Asylum. Thanks! URDNEXT ( talk) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article PlayStation (console) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The article PlayStation (console) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:PlayStation (console) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 2097 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout 2097 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jumping Flash! 2 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article British Raj you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby ( talk) 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The article PlayStation (console) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:PlayStation (console) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix ( talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout 64 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 13:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 64 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout 64 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the amount of work that remains for the Wipeout (and Jumping Flash) articles (the open GANs), I don't think they can be brought up to snuff within a GAN-sized time period. I recommended having them partially rewritten to mind the actual sources and copyedited and whatnot by others before having them come back for the GAN check. Would you be all right with my closing them? I wanted to check with you and make sure you were okay with that before I did so. czar ♔ 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout (video game) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout (video game) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Jumping Flash! 2 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jumping Flash! 2 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 2097 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout 2097 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Wipeout 64 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wipeout 64 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |