When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Good editing is saying the same thing in fewer words (Ed.)...
Hello! MapReader,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks so much for your hard work on the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article. I was thrilled to see the article was promoted to Good status! Another Believer ( Talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) |
AB Award! | |
In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
It does appear that the warning I put on your talk page was unjustified. Apologies and retractions. Dkendr ( talk) 17:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
For being understanding. And I have to compliment you as well — you made excellent edit to my shortened version! Always glad to run across another conscientious editor. I hope to see you around Wikipedia more often! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello MapReader: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae ( talk) 09:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists.
Pyxis Solitary (
talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per
WP:CAN.)
The paragraph in question was not an "addition" by me. It was previously in the section "Notable prisoners". As part of a major cleanup I moved it to "Survivors" – after using Google to quickly verify that the general discussion re Cameron was not totally fictitious. (My logic being that a section like "Notable prisoners" would usually be about people who were notable for reasons other than their time at Stalag Luft III.)
Anyway, I think a better course of action that deleting the whole par would be the addition of "citation needed" tags? Grant | Talk 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've been coming in after my edits on election results and making some edits to names. While on the whole I agree the common name should be used, I believe where a candidate is redlinked their full name should be used, as there is no page to provide that further information as of yet. This will help any editor who does decide to create that page from the redlink. -- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 11:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mapreader, in response to your comment at WT:MOS#An historic, I also use "a hotel" as you do. But I was just curious in what part of the world "hotel" is stressed on the first syllable? I've never heard that before. Mathglot ( talk) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pumi dog 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 Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil ( talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits at Arrival. The film makes a notable distinction in its narrative between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire. The preamble to the film is the fulfillment of one of her premonitions of the death of her child, which is unknown to the film watching audience as being a premonition until the film develops further. Since Wikipedia does not protect spoilers, this information about the fulfillment of the premonition should be included in some way in the first paragraph of the plot summary as useful to readers. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 12:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Move discussion to article Talk page. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Pumi dog you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pumi dog 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 Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil ( talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you review and edit a lot of geography articles. I've been working on improving Lago di Bientina, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and am not exactly confident in my work. It started out as one sentence and I've added a lot over the last few days. If you could take a look and give me some guidance, tips, or pointers, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
...for overreaching on the UK Parliament constituencies formatting. I was going to revert myself on the addition of "Sir" after seeing your revert on Warrington, but it looks like you've been taking care of that. Please let me know if there are any of my edits you haven't gotten to. Choess ( talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Ventnor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ventnor 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 Ykraps -- Ykraps ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you persist in casting your proposal in a certain light, I had to say my piece. I'm sorry - I believe I gave you every chance. Have a nice day. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If the person's name ends with an S, then they just need an apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.140.2 ( talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
With over 70 nominations and over 20 wins, can we move the accolades from the Wikipedia's main page to List of accolades received by Darkest Hour (film)? I posted this in the talk page of the film, but no one has responded yet. Daerl ( talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I don't mind, but am not really the best person to ask as my contributions to the page have been minor, correcting odd mistakes. I haven't actually seen the film yet. Why not check the stats and ping a couple of the editors who are responsible for most of the content? MapReader ( talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, since you contributed to the discussion about a revert done to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, I wanted to inform you that the discussion was transfered here, in case you wanted to keep up with it. Also, note that I restored your reply which Drmargi deleted from her talk page. Thief12 ( talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Plain English is an essay. "Garnered" is not a word with which a high-school student would, or at least should, be unfamiliar. I appreciate the simplicity of "won" (or even "earned"), but this project is not Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and we can use a more advanced vocabulary. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I feel compelled to apologize for inadvertently muddying the water at WT:MOSTV. There's been a whole lot of "talking past each other" going on, and I'll own my part in that. Happily, the primary active parties, including CapnZapp (despite some testy interaction between us, and I'll own up to my half of that, too), appear to be converging on the same basic set of conclusions. I think the main sticking point is whether it will be productive to just go change the guideline boldly based on what three editors are saying (more like 2.5, because I think it's a poor way to try to get at the desired result even if I agree with the latter), and in the face of stern opposition by another cluster of editors, over at Talk:Downton Abbey. I predict that it would backfire (for reasons dwelt on at WP:CONVENUE), and this is why I've suggested the RfC route. Two WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes editwarring and verging on a WP:POLICYFORK doesn't work. But if a solution is good, from a consensus perspective, then it will gain broad consensus if presented [well!] to the community to examine it. Get a determination of what consensus really is, based on actual policy not disputed and confusing guideline wording, then write the guideline to match, and implement the article-by-article conformation later. I've been at this a really long time (on-site and off – I was a professional policy analyst and issue-based activist all through the '90s) and this approach to policy formation and change appears to be the most effective, by a wide margin. It also often requires patience (sometimes months or even years of it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciate the suggestions you made at the Peer Review for the article North Cascades National Park. Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!-- MONGO ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, MapReader. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know I've finally been unblocked and to drop by to say thanks for your comments on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it! Huggums537 ( talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Re your edit summary:
And also: what source is there for the short forms of the names? Unsourced, it looks like WP:OR. Plenty of people don't use their first given name. If we shorten the names, there should be a source to support each candidate's chosen form of name. Leaving the names full seems neutral and accurate. But I'm happy to read the previous discussion if you can show me where to find it. Thanks. Pam D 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the above, many reliable sources (BBC News, National Newspapers etc.) just show the forename and the surname. Realistically, not many people care what candidate's middle name(s) are, whether they are on the ballot paper or not. PinkPanda272 ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your revert/edit here contained a lot of negative changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=936344153&oldid=936341047&title=Sex_Education_(TV_series)
Not only were there clear typos like 'Meave' and 'freinds', but you changed a correct 'it's' to an incorrect 'its' and 'addiction' to 'addition'. The sentence about the character Rahim was better in CeilingMessenger's edit, and 'excessive masturbation' is much more grammatically sound than 'over masturbation', which at least needs a hyphen. I also don't think it makes sense to use 'of course' in summaries, as you have twice, or to remove most of the commas you removed. 115.70.7.33 ( talk) 07:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
When the photos were taken is patently irrelevant. And in any case your issues with the caption is noted within MOS:IRELEV: “ When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals”. It’s not even a stitch job of the two images, it’s a multi-image template utilized to make the point about the divide about their performances. I don’t care about the Bacall image being taken down the multi image should be returned, and tinker with the wording and swap out which pictures of the actors are used if you like, but the image is important to help provide a more condensed and concise illustration about how there was a mixed response to the acting. Rusted AutoParts 06:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you bring the reasons for why you reverted my edits to the articles GA review? Those edits were changes asked be made. Rusted AutoParts 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am carrying out research to identify the common names of candidates so that wikipedia can use them instead of the full names. I notice from your recent edit on the Sheffield Brightside page that you changed William Ashcroft Lambert to William Lambert. If William was indeed his common name then this would be fantastic. I have been researching him and was not able to verify this. I would be grateful if you could let me know your source/s so that I can update my own records. Thanks. Graemp ( talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Cognissonance has removed the Dunkirk edit you did on June 25th without giving an explanation. Can you revert it back please and/or ask him why he deleted it? 86.8.201.245 ( talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page, Parasite (2019 film), as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and/or edited 9.3% of the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Port Gaverne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Port Gaverne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion moved here [2]
Hello,
I noticed that you reverted edits I made to the Season 4 historical accurarcy section of The Crown's wikipedia page, namely a paragraph regarding the errors in the timeline during the IRA/Funeral Montauge in the first episode of the season. You noted in their removal that this was already covered, however nothing in the article addresses these particular errors. I was therefore wondering if you could go into more detail about the reason you chose to remove the information.
Please note that per MOS:NUMERAL, numerals are acceptable for numbers larger than 9, but if you want to express them in words, please hyphenate the numbers below a hundred with more than one word. Hzh ( talk) 16:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi!, thank you for keeping the references on the 1917 (2019 film) article, when I saw "Tag: Reverted" I said "Who would revert citations?", but I then saw what you did and looks great, thank you again for restoring my citations. Have a beautiful New Year. CoryGlee ( talk) 10:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The OED should completely tell you that the words Entitle and Entitled are different
Entitle - Verb: 1. Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something. 2. Give (something) a particular title.
Entitled - Adjective: Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
There is a complete difference in the two words, hence why I have been trying to tell you that reverting edits stating something like "that led to the creation of a companion discussion show entitled The Apprentice: You're Fired!" was completely wrong. GUtt01 ( talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Was that an accidental revert? My addition was fully referenced. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Having re-checked the Manual of Style, I see that I was mistaken about its guidance for works of fiction that are no longer being made! I've reinstated your revert. Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
My edits certainly were corrections per the MOS. 1. I did not add a signature, I fixed the syntax of a signature added incorrectly by another editor (per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE) to remove the article from Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. 2. I removed the nationality because it is redundant per WP:INFONAT. It is obvious she is Spanish because she was born in Spain. Please restore my edit. MB 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|nationality=
. It goes on to specify that the parameter is rarely needed and should only be used when it differs from the country of birth. That is not the case in this article, nationality is redundant here. I do not understand your statement that I "didn't insert" the country of birth. No I didn't, it was already there. Regarding the signature, you say you don't think it is sensible to include it in this article. Yet you didn't remove it, you just removed my formatting correction. If the signature is there, it needs to be formatted correctly.
MB 06:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|birth_place=Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain
making |nationality=Spanish
redundant. So nationality should be removed per INFONAT.
MB 13:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Then feel free to write a replacement text that fits in 40 characters. I don't agree with the current policy, as I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Conclusion, but that remains the policy and its effect is that anything longer than 40 is simply discarded in some contexts. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Electoral system in which voters indicat, which is far worse. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susie Dent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey there MapReader. I noticed you reverted my edit on Emily Blunt. Guess I should've checked the talk page before making the edit (someone should place a hidden text note regarding changes to it). I am assuming that's why you reverted, and I understand. That said though, what I don't understand is the preference of using British over English. What reasoning would you give to using the former over the latter? Just curious to know the reason behind this, so that I may have a better understanding of why one is more proper to utilize than the other, and apply that when editing other articles. I see that you are English, whereas I am not, so you probably do have more experience regarding this. — Film Enthusiast ✉ 16:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit in this article ( Mr.)? According to the references I added, Mr. (with a period) is chiefly US and Canadian English style (which are North American). The original author also started the article with "Mr.". Per MOS:ENGVAR and WP:TITLE, you must not revert that. - Ivan Humphrey ( talk) 09:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi - You reverted my edit with an edit summary saying "wp:poss". I assume you meant MOS:POSS which says "Plural nouns: For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings). Morrison is a single noun and Morrisons is plural noun, so surely the correct wording is "Morrisons' market share..."? Dormskirk ( talk) 22:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering why you tagged this with {{ Use British English}}, given that the article was written by a Canadian editor about a US-themed board game created by an Austrian. I don't much care, but it seems like an inappropriate choice. Mind matrix 22:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi MapReader
You should not have reverted [8] my linking of news sources. See MOS:REFLINK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your note that the unbroadcast episode can sometimes be found on YouTube because a source was not provided. If you have a reliable source that the episode has ever been made public please add it back. Poltair ( talk) 07:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Critical acclaim is not hackneyed and over-used. Even though your points are invalid, you have to discuss per WP:BRD. It is not hard to discuss. A reminder, since you've been constantly reverting ( WP:3RR...) and opposing to discuss, you might easily be reported and blocked. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary it is possibly the most over-used phrasing in the whole of WP. MapReader ( talk) 05:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
In the "Plot" summary section of Downton Abbey: A New Era I replaced "Hollywood Hills" with "Hancock Park" because the character specifically says "Hancock Park" to distance himself from the Hollywood community. Further, when the character makes the distinction, he says "Hollywood," not "Hollywood Hills." You reverted as a "minor detail not key to the plot." But even if it was a minor detail, why revert an accurate minor detail to an inaccurate minor detail? Further, if idea was that identifying Hancock Park as "a wealthy Los Angeles enclave adjacent to Hollywood"—which I did since some might not have heard of Hancock Park—was TMI, then why not keep Hancock Park but delete the identifying information? You are much more into Wikipedia than I so I'm not so much questioning your judgement as trying to understand why my reasoning was wrong and yours is correct to help in determining future edits I might make. In fact, to get an answer to this question, I wasn't even sure if the proper place to put the query was on the Talk Page which I did first, or here. Homeboy ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mapreader. Truth be told i am not too fussed whether a candidates full name is listed and or just given name and surname. As long as a consistent approach is used. When you reverted my edit you mentioned a Wikipedia consensus. Do you have a link to the discussion or can you give me a steer to it?
Thanks in advance
Benawu2 ( talk) 05:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I did not assume that it was written in American English. I noticed that there were words like "learnt", which is in British English and I left it alone, as it was perfectly fine spelled in British English.
I only corrected grammatical errors and noted that I grew up with American English grammar rules. But active and passive voice rules are, to my knowledge, also present in British English. Trngo ( talk) 10:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isle of Wight Council, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This revert was proper [9], because the change you made rendered it no longer a clear example of "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". In your version, all of the numbers were ten or higher, so all would be normally written as numerals. The entire point of that line item (which is laying out an exception to the prior rule you tried to conform to, defeating the purpose of listing the exception) is that 5, 7, and 32 is permissible despite usually writing "five" and "seven", and so is five, seven, and thirty-two even in article otherwise preferring "32" style for numbers ten and up (which is most articles; the ones that use "thirty-two" style throughout are rare, despite the style being nominally permissible). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Crown (TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
While I agree my latest edit was definitely over detailed, especially in regards to the plot, your suggestion that “makes of aircraft aren’t mentioned in the film” isn’t necessarily correct. While Stuka is referred to simply as “dive bombers”, Collins and Mr. Dawson refer to the bomber that attacks the minesweeper and destroyer as a “Heinkel” with a brief mention to the 109 fighter; Collins: “Heinkel, 11 o’clock. She’s dropping her load on the minesweeper…109s off her starboard.” Mr. Dawson: “That’s a Heinkel. She go for that minesweeper there.” Even if the type of aircraft don’t necessarily need to be linked, some users have also been adding in the name “Tommy Jensen” in the cast list, but the “Jensen” name seems to have come out of nowhere; Nolan script makes it explicit we only know his first name. Finally, User: Zawed has removed references to the film on the Alan Deere article, saying that there is no official source saying he was the basis for the character of “Farrier” in the film. I have taken that to talk page. I don’t wish to sound impudent, but while I agree changes to the lead and plot section were not general improvements over what previously existed, you could have at least did a Partial revert as the “Jensen” name is definitely not “official” in regards to the screenplay. 92.17.199.182 ( talk) 08:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It's so good to see other editors removing pointless fluff from prose from time to time. It's surprisingly rare. Thanks. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
In English, the possessive of a word that ends with an "s" is constructed by adding an apostrophe to that word, not by adding another "s". Debresser ( talk) 16:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that you reverted this edit. As sourced in the infobox, the AFI and the BFI (arguably two of the most reliable cinema-related sources out there) state that Fury Road is both an Australian and American production. Per MOS:FILMCOUNTRY, "if the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I get that it's been called an "Australian film" here on Wikipedia for a number of years, but that doesn't automatically make it a correct information. Mazewaxie ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for removing the incorrect category of "English expatriate actresses in the United States" that I put in the article of Helena Bonham Carter. I thought she was an expatriate in the United States because she appeared in American films like Fight Club (1999). In fact, she was not an expatriate in this country. Ernestine Sanchez ( talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this edit and the following one, if you have an issue with including what Metacritic's score indicates per its website (a score of 81 and above is "universal acclaim" per its grading system), then you have an issue with a lot of album articles. It's not "superlative puff" to include a literal quote from Metacritic that is even generated by Metacritic templates, including Template:Metacritic album prose. I have partially reverted your edit because I wholeheartedly disagree with removing it and I think your edit affects more than just this article. If you have any concerns beyond this point with including two words in quotation marks sourced to the website stating them, I think you would be better off going to WT:ALBUMS or some such talk page that will attract attention. Actually, there is already a thread there concerning the wording of "received acclaim from critics". Your edit summary also implies I have some vested interest in promoting the artist or am trying to hype up the album to readers, neither of which is true. I haven't even listened to the album despite creating the article. Thanks. Ss 112 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Good editing is saying the same thing in fewer words (Ed.)...
Hello! MapReader,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks so much for your hard work on the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article. I was thrilled to see the article was promoted to Good status! Another Believer ( Talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) |
AB Award! | |
In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
It does appear that the warning I put on your talk page was unjustified. Apologies and retractions. Dkendr ( talk) 17:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
For being understanding. And I have to compliment you as well — you made excellent edit to my shortened version! Always glad to run across another conscientious editor. I hope to see you around Wikipedia more often! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello MapReader: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae ( talk) 09:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists.
Pyxis Solitary (
talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per
WP:CAN.)
The paragraph in question was not an "addition" by me. It was previously in the section "Notable prisoners". As part of a major cleanup I moved it to "Survivors" – after using Google to quickly verify that the general discussion re Cameron was not totally fictitious. (My logic being that a section like "Notable prisoners" would usually be about people who were notable for reasons other than their time at Stalag Luft III.)
Anyway, I think a better course of action that deleting the whole par would be the addition of "citation needed" tags? Grant | Talk 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've been coming in after my edits on election results and making some edits to names. While on the whole I agree the common name should be used, I believe where a candidate is redlinked their full name should be used, as there is no page to provide that further information as of yet. This will help any editor who does decide to create that page from the redlink. -- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 11:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mapreader, in response to your comment at WT:MOS#An historic, I also use "a hotel" as you do. But I was just curious in what part of the world "hotel" is stressed on the first syllable? I've never heard that before. Mathglot ( talk) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pumi dog 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 Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil ( talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits at Arrival. The film makes a notable distinction in its narrative between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire. The preamble to the film is the fulfillment of one of her premonitions of the death of her child, which is unknown to the film watching audience as being a premonition until the film develops further. Since Wikipedia does not protect spoilers, this information about the fulfillment of the premonition should be included in some way in the first paragraph of the plot summary as useful to readers. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 12:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Move discussion to article Talk page. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Pumi dog you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pumi dog 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 Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil ( talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you review and edit a lot of geography articles. I've been working on improving Lago di Bientina, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and am not exactly confident in my work. It started out as one sentence and I've added a lot over the last few days. If you could take a look and give me some guidance, tips, or pointers, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
...for overreaching on the UK Parliament constituencies formatting. I was going to revert myself on the addition of "Sir" after seeing your revert on Warrington, but it looks like you've been taking care of that. Please let me know if there are any of my edits you haven't gotten to. Choess ( talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Ventnor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ventnor 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 Ykraps -- Ykraps ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you persist in casting your proposal in a certain light, I had to say my piece. I'm sorry - I believe I gave you every chance. Have a nice day. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If the person's name ends with an S, then they just need an apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.140.2 ( talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
With over 70 nominations and over 20 wins, can we move the accolades from the Wikipedia's main page to List of accolades received by Darkest Hour (film)? I posted this in the talk page of the film, but no one has responded yet. Daerl ( talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I don't mind, but am not really the best person to ask as my contributions to the page have been minor, correcting odd mistakes. I haven't actually seen the film yet. Why not check the stats and ping a couple of the editors who are responsible for most of the content? MapReader ( talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, since you contributed to the discussion about a revert done to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, I wanted to inform you that the discussion was transfered here, in case you wanted to keep up with it. Also, note that I restored your reply which Drmargi deleted from her talk page. Thief12 ( talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Plain English is an essay. "Garnered" is not a word with which a high-school student would, or at least should, be unfamiliar. I appreciate the simplicity of "won" (or even "earned"), but this project is not Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and we can use a more advanced vocabulary. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I feel compelled to apologize for inadvertently muddying the water at WT:MOSTV. There's been a whole lot of "talking past each other" going on, and I'll own my part in that. Happily, the primary active parties, including CapnZapp (despite some testy interaction between us, and I'll own up to my half of that, too), appear to be converging on the same basic set of conclusions. I think the main sticking point is whether it will be productive to just go change the guideline boldly based on what three editors are saying (more like 2.5, because I think it's a poor way to try to get at the desired result even if I agree with the latter), and in the face of stern opposition by another cluster of editors, over at Talk:Downton Abbey. I predict that it would backfire (for reasons dwelt on at WP:CONVENUE), and this is why I've suggested the RfC route. Two WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes editwarring and verging on a WP:POLICYFORK doesn't work. But if a solution is good, from a consensus perspective, then it will gain broad consensus if presented [well!] to the community to examine it. Get a determination of what consensus really is, based on actual policy not disputed and confusing guideline wording, then write the guideline to match, and implement the article-by-article conformation later. I've been at this a really long time (on-site and off – I was a professional policy analyst and issue-based activist all through the '90s) and this approach to policy formation and change appears to be the most effective, by a wide margin. It also often requires patience (sometimes months or even years of it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciate the suggestions you made at the Peer Review for the article North Cascades National Park. Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!-- MONGO ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, MapReader. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know I've finally been unblocked and to drop by to say thanks for your comments on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it! Huggums537 ( talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Re your edit summary:
And also: what source is there for the short forms of the names? Unsourced, it looks like WP:OR. Plenty of people don't use their first given name. If we shorten the names, there should be a source to support each candidate's chosen form of name. Leaving the names full seems neutral and accurate. But I'm happy to read the previous discussion if you can show me where to find it. Thanks. Pam D 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the above, many reliable sources (BBC News, National Newspapers etc.) just show the forename and the surname. Realistically, not many people care what candidate's middle name(s) are, whether they are on the ballot paper or not. PinkPanda272 ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your revert/edit here contained a lot of negative changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=936344153&oldid=936341047&title=Sex_Education_(TV_series)
Not only were there clear typos like 'Meave' and 'freinds', but you changed a correct 'it's' to an incorrect 'its' and 'addiction' to 'addition'. The sentence about the character Rahim was better in CeilingMessenger's edit, and 'excessive masturbation' is much more grammatically sound than 'over masturbation', which at least needs a hyphen. I also don't think it makes sense to use 'of course' in summaries, as you have twice, or to remove most of the commas you removed. 115.70.7.33 ( talk) 07:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
When the photos were taken is patently irrelevant. And in any case your issues with the caption is noted within MOS:IRELEV: “ When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals”. It’s not even a stitch job of the two images, it’s a multi-image template utilized to make the point about the divide about their performances. I don’t care about the Bacall image being taken down the multi image should be returned, and tinker with the wording and swap out which pictures of the actors are used if you like, but the image is important to help provide a more condensed and concise illustration about how there was a mixed response to the acting. Rusted AutoParts 06:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you bring the reasons for why you reverted my edits to the articles GA review? Those edits were changes asked be made. Rusted AutoParts 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am carrying out research to identify the common names of candidates so that wikipedia can use them instead of the full names. I notice from your recent edit on the Sheffield Brightside page that you changed William Ashcroft Lambert to William Lambert. If William was indeed his common name then this would be fantastic. I have been researching him and was not able to verify this. I would be grateful if you could let me know your source/s so that I can update my own records. Thanks. Graemp ( talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Cognissonance has removed the Dunkirk edit you did on June 25th without giving an explanation. Can you revert it back please and/or ask him why he deleted it? 86.8.201.245 ( talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page, Parasite (2019 film), as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and/or edited 9.3% of the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Port Gaverne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Port Gaverne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion moved here [2]
Hello,
I noticed that you reverted edits I made to the Season 4 historical accurarcy section of The Crown's wikipedia page, namely a paragraph regarding the errors in the timeline during the IRA/Funeral Montauge in the first episode of the season. You noted in their removal that this was already covered, however nothing in the article addresses these particular errors. I was therefore wondering if you could go into more detail about the reason you chose to remove the information.
Please note that per MOS:NUMERAL, numerals are acceptable for numbers larger than 9, but if you want to express them in words, please hyphenate the numbers below a hundred with more than one word. Hzh ( talk) 16:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi!, thank you for keeping the references on the 1917 (2019 film) article, when I saw "Tag: Reverted" I said "Who would revert citations?", but I then saw what you did and looks great, thank you again for restoring my citations. Have a beautiful New Year. CoryGlee ( talk) 10:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The OED should completely tell you that the words Entitle and Entitled are different
Entitle - Verb: 1. Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something. 2. Give (something) a particular title.
Entitled - Adjective: Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
There is a complete difference in the two words, hence why I have been trying to tell you that reverting edits stating something like "that led to the creation of a companion discussion show entitled The Apprentice: You're Fired!" was completely wrong. GUtt01 ( talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Was that an accidental revert? My addition was fully referenced. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Having re-checked the Manual of Style, I see that I was mistaken about its guidance for works of fiction that are no longer being made! I've reinstated your revert. Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
My edits certainly were corrections per the MOS. 1. I did not add a signature, I fixed the syntax of a signature added incorrectly by another editor (per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE) to remove the article from Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. 2. I removed the nationality because it is redundant per WP:INFONAT. It is obvious she is Spanish because she was born in Spain. Please restore my edit. MB 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|nationality=
. It goes on to specify that the parameter is rarely needed and should only be used when it differs from the country of birth. That is not the case in this article, nationality is redundant here. I do not understand your statement that I "didn't insert" the country of birth. No I didn't, it was already there. Regarding the signature, you say you don't think it is sensible to include it in this article. Yet you didn't remove it, you just removed my formatting correction. If the signature is there, it needs to be formatted correctly.
MB 06:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|birth_place=Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain
making |nationality=Spanish
redundant. So nationality should be removed per INFONAT.
MB 13:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Then feel free to write a replacement text that fits in 40 characters. I don't agree with the current policy, as I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Conclusion, but that remains the policy and its effect is that anything longer than 40 is simply discarded in some contexts. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Electoral system in which voters indicat, which is far worse. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susie Dent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey there MapReader. I noticed you reverted my edit on Emily Blunt. Guess I should've checked the talk page before making the edit (someone should place a hidden text note regarding changes to it). I am assuming that's why you reverted, and I understand. That said though, what I don't understand is the preference of using British over English. What reasoning would you give to using the former over the latter? Just curious to know the reason behind this, so that I may have a better understanding of why one is more proper to utilize than the other, and apply that when editing other articles. I see that you are English, whereas I am not, so you probably do have more experience regarding this. — Film Enthusiast ✉ 16:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit in this article ( Mr.)? According to the references I added, Mr. (with a period) is chiefly US and Canadian English style (which are North American). The original author also started the article with "Mr.". Per MOS:ENGVAR and WP:TITLE, you must not revert that. - Ivan Humphrey ( talk) 09:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi - You reverted my edit with an edit summary saying "wp:poss". I assume you meant MOS:POSS which says "Plural nouns: For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings). Morrison is a single noun and Morrisons is plural noun, so surely the correct wording is "Morrisons' market share..."? Dormskirk ( talk) 22:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering why you tagged this with {{ Use British English}}, given that the article was written by a Canadian editor about a US-themed board game created by an Austrian. I don't much care, but it seems like an inappropriate choice. Mind matrix 22:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi MapReader
You should not have reverted [8] my linking of news sources. See MOS:REFLINK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your note that the unbroadcast episode can sometimes be found on YouTube because a source was not provided. If you have a reliable source that the episode has ever been made public please add it back. Poltair ( talk) 07:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Critical acclaim is not hackneyed and over-used. Even though your points are invalid, you have to discuss per WP:BRD. It is not hard to discuss. A reminder, since you've been constantly reverting ( WP:3RR...) and opposing to discuss, you might easily be reported and blocked. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary it is possibly the most over-used phrasing in the whole of WP. MapReader ( talk) 05:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
In the "Plot" summary section of Downton Abbey: A New Era I replaced "Hollywood Hills" with "Hancock Park" because the character specifically says "Hancock Park" to distance himself from the Hollywood community. Further, when the character makes the distinction, he says "Hollywood," not "Hollywood Hills." You reverted as a "minor detail not key to the plot." But even if it was a minor detail, why revert an accurate minor detail to an inaccurate minor detail? Further, if idea was that identifying Hancock Park as "a wealthy Los Angeles enclave adjacent to Hollywood"—which I did since some might not have heard of Hancock Park—was TMI, then why not keep Hancock Park but delete the identifying information? You are much more into Wikipedia than I so I'm not so much questioning your judgement as trying to understand why my reasoning was wrong and yours is correct to help in determining future edits I might make. In fact, to get an answer to this question, I wasn't even sure if the proper place to put the query was on the Talk Page which I did first, or here. Homeboy ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mapreader. Truth be told i am not too fussed whether a candidates full name is listed and or just given name and surname. As long as a consistent approach is used. When you reverted my edit you mentioned a Wikipedia consensus. Do you have a link to the discussion or can you give me a steer to it?
Thanks in advance
Benawu2 ( talk) 05:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I did not assume that it was written in American English. I noticed that there were words like "learnt", which is in British English and I left it alone, as it was perfectly fine spelled in British English.
I only corrected grammatical errors and noted that I grew up with American English grammar rules. But active and passive voice rules are, to my knowledge, also present in British English. Trngo ( talk) 10:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isle of Wight Council, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This revert was proper [9], because the change you made rendered it no longer a clear example of "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". In your version, all of the numbers were ten or higher, so all would be normally written as numerals. The entire point of that line item (which is laying out an exception to the prior rule you tried to conform to, defeating the purpose of listing the exception) is that 5, 7, and 32 is permissible despite usually writing "five" and "seven", and so is five, seven, and thirty-two even in article otherwise preferring "32" style for numbers ten and up (which is most articles; the ones that use "thirty-two" style throughout are rare, despite the style being nominally permissible). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Crown (TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
While I agree my latest edit was definitely over detailed, especially in regards to the plot, your suggestion that “makes of aircraft aren’t mentioned in the film” isn’t necessarily correct. While Stuka is referred to simply as “dive bombers”, Collins and Mr. Dawson refer to the bomber that attacks the minesweeper and destroyer as a “Heinkel” with a brief mention to the 109 fighter; Collins: “Heinkel, 11 o’clock. She’s dropping her load on the minesweeper…109s off her starboard.” Mr. Dawson: “That’s a Heinkel. She go for that minesweeper there.” Even if the type of aircraft don’t necessarily need to be linked, some users have also been adding in the name “Tommy Jensen” in the cast list, but the “Jensen” name seems to have come out of nowhere; Nolan script makes it explicit we only know his first name. Finally, User: Zawed has removed references to the film on the Alan Deere article, saying that there is no official source saying he was the basis for the character of “Farrier” in the film. I have taken that to talk page. I don’t wish to sound impudent, but while I agree changes to the lead and plot section were not general improvements over what previously existed, you could have at least did a Partial revert as the “Jensen” name is definitely not “official” in regards to the screenplay. 92.17.199.182 ( talk) 08:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It's so good to see other editors removing pointless fluff from prose from time to time. It's surprisingly rare. Thanks. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
In English, the possessive of a word that ends with an "s" is constructed by adding an apostrophe to that word, not by adding another "s". Debresser ( talk) 16:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that you reverted this edit. As sourced in the infobox, the AFI and the BFI (arguably two of the most reliable cinema-related sources out there) state that Fury Road is both an Australian and American production. Per MOS:FILMCOUNTRY, "if the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I get that it's been called an "Australian film" here on Wikipedia for a number of years, but that doesn't automatically make it a correct information. Mazewaxie ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for removing the incorrect category of "English expatriate actresses in the United States" that I put in the article of Helena Bonham Carter. I thought she was an expatriate in the United States because she appeared in American films like Fight Club (1999). In fact, she was not an expatriate in this country. Ernestine Sanchez ( talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this edit and the following one, if you have an issue with including what Metacritic's score indicates per its website (a score of 81 and above is "universal acclaim" per its grading system), then you have an issue with a lot of album articles. It's not "superlative puff" to include a literal quote from Metacritic that is even generated by Metacritic templates, including Template:Metacritic album prose. I have partially reverted your edit because I wholeheartedly disagree with removing it and I think your edit affects more than just this article. If you have any concerns beyond this point with including two words in quotation marks sourced to the website stating them, I think you would be better off going to WT:ALBUMS or some such talk page that will attract attention. Actually, there is already a thread there concerning the wording of "received acclaim from critics". Your edit summary also implies I have some vested interest in promoting the artist or am trying to hype up the album to readers, neither of which is true. I haven't even listened to the album despite creating the article. Thanks. Ss 112 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)