|
||
You reverted my edit of Takeaway relating to the phone-in scandal - whilst I am in the middle of creating such a page, why don't you think it should be mentioned on Takeaway's main page? Mosherdude91 ( talk) 15:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
GUtt01 Comments regarding an article belong on the Talk page for that article. You might have replied on the talk page for each article. Instead you seek support for yourself from a higher level editor, or so I take it that Courcelles is a higher level editor. Your edits show up in my Watchlist, so I read them as they appear in that list, and I react to them one by one. Your edits sometimes take an overly long plot summary and shorten it, but not most of the time. It seems something else motivates your edits to articles that are otherwise pretty good as to completeness and up to date citations. They are not Wikipedia Good Articles or Featured Articles; my term of pretty good means that the sections to explain why the novel is noteworthy are included and properly cited, and publication history is included when there are noteworthy aspects of that history. Further there is some consistency in the introductions to these articles and their strucutre, put in place long before I began editing on Wikipedia In past years, I have spent much time reading your new plot summaries, fixing typos, errors in the plot, and so on. You have improved in your writing after earlier discussions between us, but still leave errors behind, errors not found in the previous version of the plot summary, long checked by a variety of editors. WP:TALK has some useful guidance on the talk pages of articles and which topics belong on them. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WWTBAM2018titlecard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I thought it would be better to put the first semi finalists at the top of the page, rather than have them go in alphabetical order, and have the first semis scattered across the page.
I was only trying to help, not cause any problems. And also, I only blank my talk page, because I feel it is taking up space which isn't needed.
I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia and how to use/add articles. I only rarely use wiki, to update Super League articles.
I do not vandalise pages in any such way, and if I see what I believe is vandalism, I try to help out by reverting that edit.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this.
Much regards: L1amw90 ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
page on the BGT page to try and get the citations to load, but they aren't loading for some reason. Is there something missing, what's stopping them from loading?
Regards L1amw90 ( talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The "citations" as you put it, are actually footnotes. Citations usually have reference information (i.e. Website pages, with authors, dates and publisher.) GUtt01 ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Just to let you know, as you reverted my edits without starting a discussion, I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen)#New performance chart. Sr88, talk. 22:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to send you a message regarding the location edits on quite a few British TV shows that I made, the reverts were September 25. I completely understand the revert, I probably went into too much detail (e.g. Greater Manchester and Salford links). Therefore I have no problem with you cutting them back.
Where I wanted to clear something up was the difference between dock10 and MediaCity. Not sure if you're aware of the setup there, but MediaCity is actually the area not the studio. Dock10 is the studio building and filming location. For example, other UK studios, such as Elstree Studios (in Borehamwood), Fountain Studios (in Wembley) are noted as the studio being the location, not the area i.e Wembley. I will therefore reinstate the links to Dock10 as it is more accurate. I could remove Manchester or Salford in those instances to clean things up a bit. My preference would be dock10, MediaCityUK.
Keep up the good work, nice to see another Wikipedian working on the neglected area of British television. FelixFLB ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi GUtt01, I noticed that you a pretty good in enforcing proper plots for video game articles, including Lego DC Super-Villains. Would you be willing to check over other Lego games (oncluding the older ones) and clean up their plots. Fair to say all of them are in dire need for that. Regards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@ GUtt01: I will take a look when I can. I was quite specific with how I set out the plot for Lego DC Super-Villains to avoid a breakdown of scenes - we're only supposed to summarize key plot elements, not go over every element in detail. GUtt01 ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank god for your minor edits. I wanted to do them, but there are a lot of editors who don't know other stuff exists. Be careful, your changes will most likely be undone. Sebastian James ( talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You should be a bit more aware of how your plot summaries seem to work out. I know you edited what I started on Demons of the Punjab, that's fine, but notice that your sentence structure is nearly always "(some establishing phrase), (actual part of sentence)". That structure is fine once in a while, but the entire plot summary is nearly all that form. It's a type of passive writing style (I have had to deal with my own want to got that way), rather than a more active voice. It's easily fixed, either by rearranging, making the intro phrase into a short sentence, or the main sentence itself. Its just something to watch out for to make sure you don't use that structure I noted every sentence. -- Masem ( t) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I did not mean to offend you. I'm still glad you shortened it. I've made a few more modifications to keep it as succinct as possible while still informative. I welcome any comments, suggestions... ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 21:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your edits to the Grand Tour as you have made this page more informative for viewers. However, please ensure that everything is clarified and factually correct. I.e. In S01 E13, Richard Hammond pitted the Porsche 918 Spyder in a drag race against the Bugatti Veyron and later the 1900bhp Nissan Patrol. I have made this ammendment, while not changing the overall format of the article. Thank you for your contribution. MichaelCorleone7 ( talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)
Would love to solve our problem with the judges' table chart. Looking at it now, I still believe using the chair order is the way to go. I understand they originally had 3 judges and later on added a 4th judge, but I feel that using the chair order organizes the table much better, rather than just listing judges wherever based on when they joined/left the series. Also helps add a reason as to 'why X judge is in this column' (Ex: Seems weird right now trying to figure out if Mel or Heidi should be the judge in the 4th column after the N/A, easier to use the chair order to have an actual reason a judge is listed in that respective column.) I hope this can get resolved soon. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, just to let you know consistently reverting edits to the ratings section is not helpful. I see you referred to the upcoming eighth audition episode as false information yet you have since re-introduced the edit. I'm therefore assuming you've seen the only false information on the page was being provided by you. Please consider alternative means of resolving situations in future such as discussing on talk pages rather than engaging in edit wars, which could result in you being blocked. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Thedamneditor ( talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
https://mobile.twitter.com/BGT?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Confirms the acts being put on the show so I was just confirming these acts Joshua7900 ( talk) 22:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop changing the ratings for series 13 of bgt. These have always been recorded in 7 day data. If series 13 were recorded using 28 day data this would stand out from all other sereis of bgt. I'm asking you nicely now to stop. -- Slindsell15 ( talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Slindsell15: Please check the article for Series 12 of BGT. The data on ratings is focused on 28 day figures provided by BARB (as can be seen here ). Quite a number of BGT series articles try to make use of these figures where available, to be accurate over total viewing figures for episodes, both from broadcast and catch-up services. GUtt01 ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know - that's some good work on The Young Ones article. It was getting a bit unwieldy. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a friendly note to point out that you have now made 8 clear reversions in less than 1 hour at 2019 United Kingdom general election. You seem to have gotten into another edit-war like the one at List of The Grand Tour episodes. You can't keep doing this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
But it's not better. It's worse. Also, as you can see from the diffs the layout was already pretty clear
What you turned it into was:
Further, you refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, and when I tried to talk to you, the conversation was promptly deleted. Me | Talk 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why are you against specifying that Labout got its lowest share of seats since 1935, when the Conservative party is described as getting its highest share since 1983 just above ?-- Aréat ( talk) 17:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So who won the seat, that you keep adding to the 2019 Labour results? GoodDay ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Thank you for deciding on the matter in hand. I figured I went too far in this, and will take my punishment as necessary. I firmly hold my hand up to getting too heated up over an editing dispute on the article that triggered this - I was trying to clean up the article's Lead to be a brief overlay and just got annoyed with constant restorations to a previous version. I think AussieLegend should have acted sooner with that dispute on list of episode article, although I can't say for certain what would have happened there, but probably the same thing as well. I'm gonna wait out this block and try and control myself - maybe take a leaf out of AussieLegend's User Page on prompting discussion rather than Edit Warring in future. GUtt01 ( talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend: My sincere apologies for the trouble beforehand, both on that dispute earlier this month and the comments above. To be honest, I was in a panick there, and probably not thinking straight - I suppose it might have been fear of getting block making me act up there. I made a catastrophic mistake there and I gonna be left with regret on several things such as not engaging in discussion and failing to heed 3:RR. I'm gonna try my best to engage in discussion if a dispute on editing (except for vandalism and introduction of false information) occurs. I do intend to return to the General Election article in question, but only to review the Lead and determine if does what it should - act as a brief overview of the article - I'm having second thoughts on what I wrote in there, and whether it should be changed to make clear on what the article denotes, not just on the results of an election. GUtt01 ( talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that you don't get to unilaterally interpret which content fits MOS:LEAD and which doesn't, nor does it justify you reverting others' edits multiple time without even caring to discuss the issue with them at the talk page. Typically, when there is a clear content dispute over it, you would seek consensus at the article's talk page rather than seeking to impose your will unilaterally over and over again (yes, that's exactly what edit warring is). Further, you seem to have violated the Three-revert rule by making four reverts within a 24-hour period, which is surprising because you seem to have been blocked just a few days ago precisely because of edit warring issues. Impru20 talk 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just curious why you use gold for acts that got Dunkin' Save and navajowhite for act that advanced by the public vote. I mean the public vote is kinda more important and dominant than the Dunkin' save. Also personally I think you should include the judges' cut round in the wiki too (just my opinion btw).
AzazeltiT (Titlezaza) ( talk) 14:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that in 2017 you redid a number of the plot sections of Mr. Bean episode articles, including adding titles to the acts and changing the act divisions. Do you have a source for how the episodes are divided into acts / the titles of the acts? — Smjg ( talk) 00:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just in case you don't already know... draft located here. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Good day. I see that you have reverted my edit on America's Got Talent. Runners-up is the plural form and not runner-ups. - Hiwilms ( talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't making a test edit for Sonic the Hedgehog. At the time, I was adding some other roles done by people we know and working to separate the other voice roles from the live-action portrayals that you removed. I just wanted to let you know that. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 15:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little concerned with this edit. You've removed Chinatown Wars from the list of canon games due to lack of sourcing, but you've later stated that the game is "in a different canon" without providing a source. I hope you can see the contradiction here. I'd recommend moving the comment about canon and adding a source to the end of the sentence, like this one. You've also stated that Liberty City is based on "the four boroughs of New York City", but New York City actually has five boroughs, so the previous version was more accurate. – Rhain ☔ 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Magitroopa: Apologies for my actions... Let myself get carried away. I left a question on the talk page of one of the affected articles. Please proceed with EDND on me; I'll take the punishment if it is necessary, as I don't deserve much forgiveness for behaviour. And sorry for acting rude on an editing comment, I shouldn't have written it. I just didn't know if the wording of the caption sounded right. If it pleases you, I asked an Admin if he could block me for 24 hours, in case I did something I would later regret... GUtt01 ( talk) 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tangled. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Smjg ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you agreed to stop the war about the seasons of America's Got Talent? If so, please leave a message on the noticeboard to confirm. This might allow the report to be closed. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The only report I agree to them including is the one you handled. GUtt01 ( talk) 05:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello GUtt01. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sweep (puppet), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
You recently remove my edit about Brian Hull on his page and BGT series 10 due it being poorly written out and possibly not neutral in viewpoint, could u help reword it Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
So if the conclusion to the discussion was to keep the templates, why remove them from the pages anyway? If it was only meant to live on one page, the tempates would have been deleted and it would have been made into a single table like on the Legend of Zelda series page. It's also not undue weight, because both Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear are highly serialized stories with plenty of independent third party coverage in reputable sources about their plots and how they link together (hence why the templates were kept in the first place), so the plot sections are exactly where the chronology template makes the most sense to be, as that's where that information is most relevant. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 00:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 09:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms.(From the FF7 discussion, emphasis added)
Plot/narrative order is a big component of the Kingdom Hearts series, and each of the titles are sourced within the various articles to support this order. And as the plot of this series can be a bit confusing, for both new and experienced players of the series, this simple template is a helpful aid on the relevant game articles. ...(From the KH discussion)
Metal Gear (and Metal Gear Solid) is a franchise notable for its complicated plot, spanning several games non-linearly. It is, for example, featured first in this article about complicated video game storylines. This chronology helps illustrate that fact and contrast it to the real-world release timeline of the games as a relevant facet of the work.(From the MGS discussion, external link removed)
Should the Millionaire article include slight variations for visually impaired contestants, such as in Fastest Finger First? Visokor ( talk) 13:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the 'Contest overview' was never ordered up until now... just tried myself and I believe it's all fixed now. Unsure if there's anything else similar on the article that needs fixing/ordering. Magitroopa ( talk) 01:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Magitroopa: - There was one thing needed fixing up: the sort function for one of the preliminary tables, which I've already taken care of. Other than that, about the same as you, as I don't see anything else that needs fixing up on the article. GUtt01 ( talk) 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello GUtt01, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jack Pack (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BBC Top Gear (2002) Presenters, 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:TopGearPolarSpecialVehicles.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TopGearPolarSpecialGnT.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WeHappyFewUncleJack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
|
||
You reverted my edit of Takeaway relating to the phone-in scandal - whilst I am in the middle of creating such a page, why don't you think it should be mentioned on Takeaway's main page? Mosherdude91 ( talk) 15:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
GUtt01 Comments regarding an article belong on the Talk page for that article. You might have replied on the talk page for each article. Instead you seek support for yourself from a higher level editor, or so I take it that Courcelles is a higher level editor. Your edits show up in my Watchlist, so I read them as they appear in that list, and I react to them one by one. Your edits sometimes take an overly long plot summary and shorten it, but not most of the time. It seems something else motivates your edits to articles that are otherwise pretty good as to completeness and up to date citations. They are not Wikipedia Good Articles or Featured Articles; my term of pretty good means that the sections to explain why the novel is noteworthy are included and properly cited, and publication history is included when there are noteworthy aspects of that history. Further there is some consistency in the introductions to these articles and their strucutre, put in place long before I began editing on Wikipedia In past years, I have spent much time reading your new plot summaries, fixing typos, errors in the plot, and so on. You have improved in your writing after earlier discussions between us, but still leave errors behind, errors not found in the previous version of the plot summary, long checked by a variety of editors. WP:TALK has some useful guidance on the talk pages of articles and which topics belong on them. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WWTBAM2018titlecard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I thought it would be better to put the first semi finalists at the top of the page, rather than have them go in alphabetical order, and have the first semis scattered across the page.
I was only trying to help, not cause any problems. And also, I only blank my talk page, because I feel it is taking up space which isn't needed.
I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia and how to use/add articles. I only rarely use wiki, to update Super League articles.
I do not vandalise pages in any such way, and if I see what I believe is vandalism, I try to help out by reverting that edit.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this.
Much regards: L1amw90 ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
page on the BGT page to try and get the citations to load, but they aren't loading for some reason. Is there something missing, what's stopping them from loading?
Regards L1amw90 ( talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The "citations" as you put it, are actually footnotes. Citations usually have reference information (i.e. Website pages, with authors, dates and publisher.) GUtt01 ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Just to let you know, as you reverted my edits without starting a discussion, I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen)#New performance chart. Sr88, talk. 22:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to send you a message regarding the location edits on quite a few British TV shows that I made, the reverts were September 25. I completely understand the revert, I probably went into too much detail (e.g. Greater Manchester and Salford links). Therefore I have no problem with you cutting them back.
Where I wanted to clear something up was the difference between dock10 and MediaCity. Not sure if you're aware of the setup there, but MediaCity is actually the area not the studio. Dock10 is the studio building and filming location. For example, other UK studios, such as Elstree Studios (in Borehamwood), Fountain Studios (in Wembley) are noted as the studio being the location, not the area i.e Wembley. I will therefore reinstate the links to Dock10 as it is more accurate. I could remove Manchester or Salford in those instances to clean things up a bit. My preference would be dock10, MediaCityUK.
Keep up the good work, nice to see another Wikipedian working on the neglected area of British television. FelixFLB ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi GUtt01, I noticed that you a pretty good in enforcing proper plots for video game articles, including Lego DC Super-Villains. Would you be willing to check over other Lego games (oncluding the older ones) and clean up their plots. Fair to say all of them are in dire need for that. Regards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@ GUtt01: I will take a look when I can. I was quite specific with how I set out the plot for Lego DC Super-Villains to avoid a breakdown of scenes - we're only supposed to summarize key plot elements, not go over every element in detail. GUtt01 ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank god for your minor edits. I wanted to do them, but there are a lot of editors who don't know other stuff exists. Be careful, your changes will most likely be undone. Sebastian James ( talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You should be a bit more aware of how your plot summaries seem to work out. I know you edited what I started on Demons of the Punjab, that's fine, but notice that your sentence structure is nearly always "(some establishing phrase), (actual part of sentence)". That structure is fine once in a while, but the entire plot summary is nearly all that form. It's a type of passive writing style (I have had to deal with my own want to got that way), rather than a more active voice. It's easily fixed, either by rearranging, making the intro phrase into a short sentence, or the main sentence itself. Its just something to watch out for to make sure you don't use that structure I noted every sentence. -- Masem ( t) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I did not mean to offend you. I'm still glad you shortened it. I've made a few more modifications to keep it as succinct as possible while still informative. I welcome any comments, suggestions... ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 21:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your edits to the Grand Tour as you have made this page more informative for viewers. However, please ensure that everything is clarified and factually correct. I.e. In S01 E13, Richard Hammond pitted the Porsche 918 Spyder in a drag race against the Bugatti Veyron and later the 1900bhp Nissan Patrol. I have made this ammendment, while not changing the overall format of the article. Thank you for your contribution. MichaelCorleone7 ( talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)
Would love to solve our problem with the judges' table chart. Looking at it now, I still believe using the chair order is the way to go. I understand they originally had 3 judges and later on added a 4th judge, but I feel that using the chair order organizes the table much better, rather than just listing judges wherever based on when they joined/left the series. Also helps add a reason as to 'why X judge is in this column' (Ex: Seems weird right now trying to figure out if Mel or Heidi should be the judge in the 4th column after the N/A, easier to use the chair order to have an actual reason a judge is listed in that respective column.) I hope this can get resolved soon. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, just to let you know consistently reverting edits to the ratings section is not helpful. I see you referred to the upcoming eighth audition episode as false information yet you have since re-introduced the edit. I'm therefore assuming you've seen the only false information on the page was being provided by you. Please consider alternative means of resolving situations in future such as discussing on talk pages rather than engaging in edit wars, which could result in you being blocked. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Thedamneditor ( talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
https://mobile.twitter.com/BGT?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Confirms the acts being put on the show so I was just confirming these acts Joshua7900 ( talk) 22:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop changing the ratings for series 13 of bgt. These have always been recorded in 7 day data. If series 13 were recorded using 28 day data this would stand out from all other sereis of bgt. I'm asking you nicely now to stop. -- Slindsell15 ( talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Slindsell15: Please check the article for Series 12 of BGT. The data on ratings is focused on 28 day figures provided by BARB (as can be seen here ). Quite a number of BGT series articles try to make use of these figures where available, to be accurate over total viewing figures for episodes, both from broadcast and catch-up services. GUtt01 ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know - that's some good work on The Young Ones article. It was getting a bit unwieldy. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a friendly note to point out that you have now made 8 clear reversions in less than 1 hour at 2019 United Kingdom general election. You seem to have gotten into another edit-war like the one at List of The Grand Tour episodes. You can't keep doing this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
But it's not better. It's worse. Also, as you can see from the diffs the layout was already pretty clear
What you turned it into was:
Further, you refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, and when I tried to talk to you, the conversation was promptly deleted. Me | Talk 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why are you against specifying that Labout got its lowest share of seats since 1935, when the Conservative party is described as getting its highest share since 1983 just above ?-- Aréat ( talk) 17:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So who won the seat, that you keep adding to the 2019 Labour results? GoodDay ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Thank you for deciding on the matter in hand. I figured I went too far in this, and will take my punishment as necessary. I firmly hold my hand up to getting too heated up over an editing dispute on the article that triggered this - I was trying to clean up the article's Lead to be a brief overlay and just got annoyed with constant restorations to a previous version. I think AussieLegend should have acted sooner with that dispute on list of episode article, although I can't say for certain what would have happened there, but probably the same thing as well. I'm gonna wait out this block and try and control myself - maybe take a leaf out of AussieLegend's User Page on prompting discussion rather than Edit Warring in future. GUtt01 ( talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend: My sincere apologies for the trouble beforehand, both on that dispute earlier this month and the comments above. To be honest, I was in a panick there, and probably not thinking straight - I suppose it might have been fear of getting block making me act up there. I made a catastrophic mistake there and I gonna be left with regret on several things such as not engaging in discussion and failing to heed 3:RR. I'm gonna try my best to engage in discussion if a dispute on editing (except for vandalism and introduction of false information) occurs. I do intend to return to the General Election article in question, but only to review the Lead and determine if does what it should - act as a brief overview of the article - I'm having second thoughts on what I wrote in there, and whether it should be changed to make clear on what the article denotes, not just on the results of an election. GUtt01 ( talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that you don't get to unilaterally interpret which content fits MOS:LEAD and which doesn't, nor does it justify you reverting others' edits multiple time without even caring to discuss the issue with them at the talk page. Typically, when there is a clear content dispute over it, you would seek consensus at the article's talk page rather than seeking to impose your will unilaterally over and over again (yes, that's exactly what edit warring is). Further, you seem to have violated the Three-revert rule by making four reverts within a 24-hour period, which is surprising because you seem to have been blocked just a few days ago precisely because of edit warring issues. Impru20 talk 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just curious why you use gold for acts that got Dunkin' Save and navajowhite for act that advanced by the public vote. I mean the public vote is kinda more important and dominant than the Dunkin' save. Also personally I think you should include the judges' cut round in the wiki too (just my opinion btw).
AzazeltiT (Titlezaza) ( talk) 14:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that in 2017 you redid a number of the plot sections of Mr. Bean episode articles, including adding titles to the acts and changing the act divisions. Do you have a source for how the episodes are divided into acts / the titles of the acts? — Smjg ( talk) 00:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just in case you don't already know... draft located here. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Good day. I see that you have reverted my edit on America's Got Talent. Runners-up is the plural form and not runner-ups. - Hiwilms ( talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't making a test edit for Sonic the Hedgehog. At the time, I was adding some other roles done by people we know and working to separate the other voice roles from the live-action portrayals that you removed. I just wanted to let you know that. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 15:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little concerned with this edit. You've removed Chinatown Wars from the list of canon games due to lack of sourcing, but you've later stated that the game is "in a different canon" without providing a source. I hope you can see the contradiction here. I'd recommend moving the comment about canon and adding a source to the end of the sentence, like this one. You've also stated that Liberty City is based on "the four boroughs of New York City", but New York City actually has five boroughs, so the previous version was more accurate. – Rhain ☔ 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Magitroopa ( talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Magitroopa: Apologies for my actions... Let myself get carried away. I left a question on the talk page of one of the affected articles. Please proceed with EDND on me; I'll take the punishment if it is necessary, as I don't deserve much forgiveness for behaviour. And sorry for acting rude on an editing comment, I shouldn't have written it. I just didn't know if the wording of the caption sounded right. If it pleases you, I asked an Admin if he could block me for 24 hours, in case I did something I would later regret... GUtt01 ( talk) 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tangled. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Smjg ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you agreed to stop the war about the seasons of America's Got Talent? If so, please leave a message on the noticeboard to confirm. This might allow the report to be closed. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The only report I agree to them including is the one you handled. GUtt01 ( talk) 05:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello GUtt01. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sweep (puppet), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
You recently remove my edit about Brian Hull on his page and BGT series 10 due it being poorly written out and possibly not neutral in viewpoint, could u help reword it Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
So if the conclusion to the discussion was to keep the templates, why remove them from the pages anyway? If it was only meant to live on one page, the tempates would have been deleted and it would have been made into a single table like on the Legend of Zelda series page. It's also not undue weight, because both Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear are highly serialized stories with plenty of independent third party coverage in reputable sources about their plots and how they link together (hence why the templates were kept in the first place), so the plot sections are exactly where the chronology template makes the most sense to be, as that's where that information is most relevant. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 00:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 09:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms.(From the FF7 discussion, emphasis added)
Plot/narrative order is a big component of the Kingdom Hearts series, and each of the titles are sourced within the various articles to support this order. And as the plot of this series can be a bit confusing, for both new and experienced players of the series, this simple template is a helpful aid on the relevant game articles. ...(From the KH discussion)
Metal Gear (and Metal Gear Solid) is a franchise notable for its complicated plot, spanning several games non-linearly. It is, for example, featured first in this article about complicated video game storylines. This chronology helps illustrate that fact and contrast it to the real-world release timeline of the games as a relevant facet of the work.(From the MGS discussion, external link removed)
Should the Millionaire article include slight variations for visually impaired contestants, such as in Fastest Finger First? Visokor ( talk) 13:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the 'Contest overview' was never ordered up until now... just tried myself and I believe it's all fixed now. Unsure if there's anything else similar on the article that needs fixing/ordering. Magitroopa ( talk) 01:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Magitroopa: - There was one thing needed fixing up: the sort function for one of the preliminary tables, which I've already taken care of. Other than that, about the same as you, as I don't see anything else that needs fixing up on the article. GUtt01 ( talk) 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello GUtt01, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jack Pack (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BBC Top Gear (2002) Presenters, 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:TopGearPolarSpecialVehicles.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TopGearPolarSpecialGnT.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WeHappyFewUncleJack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)