Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 10 September 2014

/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. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. danielkueh (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring while ignoring the talk page at Peter Hitchens

Ignoring the talk page discussion while edit warring and removing ref'd material at Peter Hitchens isnt going to help your case. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool/Bucharest Semi-Final

Hi there, I really liked your new article on the Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest European Cup Semi Final. I've nominated it for Did You Know at Template:Did you know nominations/Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final. I think it should get through fairly easily as it is well referenced. The only concerns it may get is that the second paragraph of background isn't referenced and nor is the first paragraph of matches. Other than that it looks top notch. I've put in an initial potential hook in the nomination, but there is a lot of potential hooks from the article so feel free to add them (of course) if you don't like the one I came up with! Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and support. The Did You Know nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final seems to have been rejected, is that the case? I'm totally unfamiliar with how the DYT process works. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Its still awaiting a review. The line "No QPQ as it isn't a self nom." was added by me - it refers to a requirement for DYK writers with more than five nominations who need to do a quid pro quo for any nominations over five. But if you nominate another user's article then there is no requirement to do the review. Miyagawa (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger that, cheers. Jprw (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final

On 2 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the 1984 European Cup Semi-Final between Liverpool and Dinamo Bucharest, Graeme Souness punched Lică Movilă in the face, breaking his jaw, but it wasn't seen by the referee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi, you tagged the Johann Hari article for use of primary sources. I was a bit mystified by this, as a quick scan of the sources showed 90% were newspapers and similar. The only primary source I am aware of is Johann Hari's website, which as I understand it would normally be considered acceptable when (for example) describing Hari's views, which is what it's used for here. I've deleted the tag. If you wish to discuss further please start a discussion at the article Talk page. Thanks --Merlinme (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest

Hi Jprw. You probably noticed that I have redirected and protected Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final. This is because I saw a protected edit request at Talk:Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final where I learned that the page was a recreation of Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final, which was deleted at this AfD discussion. The article looked substantially similar to the article that was deleted, so I wasn't sure whether the new sources that you mentioned were sufficient to overturn the AfD result. If it turns out that they are sufficient, then I will have no problem with restoring the article, but I think this needs to be done through the proper channels. Could you ask the deleting admin, Spartaz, what he thinks of the new version? If he is ok with restoring it, then that will be good enough for me. Alternatively, if Spartaz isn't amenable to restoring the article, you can always submit an appeal to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Spoilt Rotten, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of full section

I notice an entire section on Roger Scruton was deleted, apparently on the grounds of 'disproportionate weight' being given to the topic. If you look at the talk page, you'll notice there's a lengthy discussion in which you participated, between a number of different posters about whether the 200-odd words are justified. You'll notice that the opinion of the other posters was that it was well referenced, relevant, and had appropriately covered, while your opinion was that it should be "pared down". However rather than editing the section or trying to agree reasonable changes, you simply deleted it entirely!

Please do not delete full sections without justification - particularly where the opinion of other editors has been discussed, debated, and made clear. The talk page is there for major changes to be discussed and agreed. Please use it.