Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 22 June 2013

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Congratulations on The Rage. Is this your second GA? It's hard to tell--you don't show off your accomplishments. – Lionel 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm approaching the half-dozen mark. For the time being I hope to continue to concentrate (time permitting, of course) on conservative-orientated contemporary publications. In addition, the Roger Scruton article is in need of quite serious attention, after being the subject of quite partisan editing in the past. But we're talking a lot of work to redress the balance there. Regards, Jprw (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thatcher

I am disappointed that you again removed material which is referenced to reliable sources and which was agreed by consensus. Could you please wait for a new consensus to form before removing it again? Thank you. --John (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Rage against god

Hi Jprw. He to Hecuba (talk · contribs) has been declared a banned sock puppet. Since he conducted a review of your article, which has since been deleted, I have initiated a GA reassessment to evaluate the Good status. Hopefully there will not be much to do and we can reaffirm the GA status. AIRcorn (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how disturbing – but thanks for letting me know. Jprw (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have something up now. AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiGrail

Hi there! I was admiring your great work on Christianity-related articles, which made me think you should sign up for the 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards, – Lionel 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Given that the entire article was written by myself and Nehrams and the article underwent a vigorous GA review I'd say we'd have spotted that at the time. The Cincentta studio and Leone contacts in Rome is important to mention given its links with Itaiian cinema and how Clint became so well known in Italy. The fact that the film was shot in a small Andusalian village is very relevant given that they returend to the location and that it was not shot in Italy and Clint spent at least 11 weeks of his life there. It is also relevant as background information because of the fact the crew shouted "Vaya" which is Spanish during the bridge shooting scene, documented further down. Both are very well documented in our biographical material on Clint. I'm going to ask Nehrams his opinion on this but my feeling is that the brief production info is very relevant to his biography. Remember that "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one of them", so it is just your opinion that its not relevant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am new to the article and that bit stood out like a sore thumb as I was reading it – it is clearly too much detail, and I'm sure it's better off in the article about the film. As for "underwent a vigorous GA review" I found other problems in the lead alone. No doubt there will be more. And please try and be a bit more civil in your discourse, thanks. Jprw (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2012 (UT

They happen to be his highest commercially successful films and his only comedies and are clearly relevant. Oh, and you're hardly one to lecture on civility with degrading comments like this. Somebody has clearly put a lot of work into that article and its quite unpleasant for people who have put a lot of hard work into an article for you to come along and imply its rubbish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that it is a fantastic article, and the changes I am making are only with a view to improving it. The fact that you have put in such a huge amount of work surely does not mean that it cannot be tweaked / improved here and there; after all, you do not own it.

Fair enough re: the success of the comedies, but I've tweaked the wording. Also, listing all the DH films in the lead seems excessive, the hyperlink does that job for us fine (in contrast, the SW trio are all so iconic that they probably deserve an individual mention). Jprw (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. Sorry, if I was a bit heavy handed with you yesterday, I can see now that you are a very good copyeditor. But when somebody makes some notable changes to something that's been there a long time the first reaction is to question it. The article has been heavily researched and we wanted it to be as comprehensive as possible. Sometime I wish to nominate for FA, so I would ask for some assistance in this, if you are interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I can understand that you were worried by what may have been appeared to be a bull-in-a-china shop approach on my part. As and when time permits I would love to help out in any FA nomination process; I think the article has massive potential in this respect – the groundwork has been put in and it should be just a question of tweaking / fine tuning, etc. Jprw (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Murray

Murray's anti-Irish sentiments are well known and the Irish jokes incident is in indicator of how that man thinks. I've restored the section on his attempts to popularise and defend Irish jokes. Donoreavenue (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your evident antipathy towards Murray is clearly causing you to think irrationally about this issue. Not only is the accusation a bad case of synthesis, but throwaway remarks should not make up whole sections of biographies of living persons on WP. It is both misleading and irrelevant and needs to go. Jprw (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually say that your evident admiration for Murray is making you behave in a censorious manner. The section will be restored and if you continue to vandalise the article you will be reported. Donoreavenue (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we continue this on the DM talk page? Cheers (will copy over). Jprw (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a formal dispute regarding this as I don't think we can now resolve this between ourselves. Donoreavenue (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Douglas_Murray_(author)". Thank you. --Donoreavenue (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jprw, happy with your new edits on the Douglas Murray article. Donoreavenue (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, I'll leave it to other editors to pare down what seems a too-detalied description of the Irish Jokes incident. Jprw (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Master and His Emissary

Hi, have left a reply to your note at Talk:The Master and His Emissary‎. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks will check it out. Jprw (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you.

Why thank you. But I am not entirely sure what I did to deserve it.... MisterShiney ✉ 13:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An instructive correction :) Jprw (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Where? lol MisterShiney ✉ 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Homeland page, I was unaware of the procedure for listing characters. Jprw (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The article is Stephen Leather. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Liverpool F.C. in European football

This is a note to let the main editors of Liverpool F.C. in European football know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 12, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 12, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Liverpool Football Club is Britain's most successful team in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions. Since 1964, Liverpool have won eleven European trophies: the UEFA Champions League (formerly known as the European Cup) five times, the UEFA Europa League (formerly known as the UEFA Cup) three times, and the UEFA Super Cup three times. Liverpool qualified for European competitions for 21 consecutive seasons until the 1985 European Cup Final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which the club was banned from Europe for six seasons. Since being readmitted, they have qualified for the Champions League eight times and the UEFA Cup seven times. As a result of their victory in the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final, Liverpool won the European Champion Clubs' Cup trophy (pictured) outright. Bob Paisley is the club's most successful manager in Europe, with five trophies. Liverpool's biggest win in Europe is an 11–0 victory over Strømsgodset in the 1974–75 European Cup Winners' Cup. In European competitions, Jamie Carragher holds the club record for the most appearances, with 139, and Steven Gerrard is the club's record goalscorer, with 38 goals. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ed West (journalist)

The article Ed West (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently 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. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)