:: Hello. Another issue is that it is about only one story in a collection of ten, which at the very least needs to be clarified - and there nine other summaries should then be added. [[Special:Contributions/75.156.68.21|75.156.68.21]] ([[User talk:75.156.68.21|talk]]) 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Hello. Another issue is that it is about only one story in a collection of ten, which at the very least needs to be clarified - and there nine other summaries should then be added. [[Special:Contributions/75.156.68.21|75.156.68.21]] ([[User talk:75.156.68.21|talk]]) 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Correct. Could you attempt it?<br /><strong>— | [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] | <small>[[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard ]]</small> |</strong> — 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Correct. Could you attempt it?<br /><strong>— | [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] | <small>[[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard ]]</small> |</strong> — 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: Not at the moment, as I've only read three. But sure, I can add them in as I go. [[Special:Contributions/75.156.68.21|75.156.68.21]] ([[User talk:75.156.68.21|talk]]) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:27, 14 October 2013
Please note that should I post on your Talk page, I 'watch' your page ... no need to leave 'Talkback' templates on this page!
Il trovatore is an opera in four acts by Giuseppe Verdi to an Italian libretto largely written by Salvadore Cammarano, based on the Spanish play El trovador (1836) by Antonio García Gutiérrez. Set in the 15th century in Biscay and Aragon, Spain, it tells the story of a nobleman named Count di Luna, who falls in love with Leonora, a lady-in-waiting. However, Leonora in turn falls in love with Manrico, the titular troubadour of the opera. The premiere of Il trovatore took place at the Teatro Apollo in Rome in January 1853. This undated poster by Luigi Morgari depicts a scene from act 4 of the opera, in which Leonora encounters Manrico, who is imprisoned in di Luna's dungeon.Poster credit: Luigi Morgari; restored by Adam Cuerden
These reports help users by providing them with utility reports, used by community members to improve the encyclopedia (e.g., Untagged stubs (configuration)) and statistical reports, which have past and present informational value (e.g., Page count by namespace (configuration)).
Please discuss the current reports or suggest a new report on the talk page.
Hi Gareth, I think you had misunderstood my change to Metric System. I was correcting the French in a section dedicated to describing the French-named units. If you look at the talkpage though, you will see there is also a discussion about whether French should be used at all where English could easily be correctly used instead. I guess from your comment that you'll agree with me there that, as this is indeed an English article, that French should be avoided if possible. EdithLovely (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening EdithLovely (or should it be the lovely Edith?) You are correct in your assumption and I thank you for clarifying your intention ... I have just revisited the article to undo my revision and see that you have already done that. All the best! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 21:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove legitimate tags like this in future. Writing a good lead is not a simple task, which is why we have a tag for this; I do endeavour to return to articles I tag myself, but for the time being this helps to attract other editors with the requisite skills. I'll be restoring the tag in question in due course if the lead continues to be unduly short. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that Huddersfield does seem to be an odd choice (noting that the ip who made that change is apparently located in Huddersfield!) I’d never thought of Leeds as being “in the Pennines” as such but the Leeds article deos says it’s in the foothills of the Pennines. Any distinct eastern edge of the Pennines does not seem to be very well defined, at least not in that article. So, as much as it pains me, I am tempted to support User:J3Mrs on this one!! That ip edit seems to be certainly against consensus. ”Refeshments, anyone?”Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, My being an avid listener to The Yoemen, I usually wait to hear what is about to befeatured on Front Row. Tonight was a treat ... you must listen to it on i>Player! Tubular Mike & The Virginal Richard ... I learnt so much. Bought the album in mid-Seventies – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning "IP66"! Apologies for my delaying to respond, but I have not been editing WP since the beginning of this week. Whether you are right or wrong is not the issue ... use the article Talk for comments, not the actual article. Other interested editors will respond there and a discussion can follow. Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|—08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice surprise
Hello GG-J. I was channel surfing this afternoon and came upon a replay of the England v Barbarians game. It was on this [1] channel which is relatively new on our cable. They might have even shown it live this morning but I was all wrapped up watching the Monaco Grand Prix so I would have missed it anyway. I know that one shouldn't read too much into this kind of match but they sure did look in fine form. I will be checking on this stations schedule to see if they show any of the upcoming tour. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth. I hope you don't mind, but as your c/e was 9 months ago, and as you haven't edited for a week and might be on a break, I've agreed to do a quick new c/e for Jona. Hope that's OK. Simon --Stfg (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you both and thanks for picking up the review Simon. Please note that Gareth left a wikibreak note close to the top of this page. He will be back on July 1st - unless he wins a lottery and then it might be longer :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MarnetteD. Yes, I overlooked the wikibreak notice. I'll be done with the article well before Gareth gets back, lottery or no. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggle, the newcomer socialization tool I've been building, is finally ready for general use. All you need to do to get started is point your browser to https://snuggle.grouplens.org. Let me know if you run into any trouble. I'll be watching WT:Snuggle. Or you can also just contact me directly. Thanks for your patience.
Hi! I just wanted to post a reminder that this discussion will be happening in about 24 hours. If you haven't already used Snuggle, I recommend giving it a try before the meeting. I'll be in #wikimedia-officeconnect a half hour early to answer any questions you have. --EpochFail(talk • work)15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, I have had a great vacation. Thank you for looking after the shop. I have removed the Wikibreak template extended from July 1 to July 31 ... I am sort of slipping slowly back into Wikipedia. Must be experiencing withdrawal symptoms! I do not seem to be able to leave an edit summary here... What has changed? – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! I was about to go to your talk page and leave a message. I am not sure about the edit summary situation. While you were gone they did add a "visual editor" to the system but I know next to nothing about using it so I just soldier on with the old way of editing. Village pump (technical) is probably the place to head to for an answer. None of my cable stations showed any of the Lions tour down under so I followed it through various online news reports. I did wake up to the final game of the "State of Origin" series this morning won by Queensland. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk19:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear back from you. I was so proud of "my boys" on the tour. Gatland was strong and his choices in the predominance of Wales players, especially in the final test, was entirely justified. All the best – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Gareth, if you mean that you were unable to leave an edit summary when creating this section - that's normal behaviour when you use the "new section" tab, and has been like that for at least as long as I've been around (four years). Instead, you get a default edit summary which ends with the words "new section" - as here. VisualEditor won't be the problem, because it is not yet enabled for talk pages... and it's unlikely ever to be, since they want to use a thing called "Flow" for talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, once more, to Redrose! I realised when I returned to reply to Michael and of course could write my ES, that I must have been affected by (a) my seven weeks break from WP, and (b) the temperature here reaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Also thanks for alerting me to Flow which explains a cryptic message left early this morning by PCW. Cheers! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 07:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a quiet day, the template which someone's added to the first sentence of this page could cause small ripples of mirth amongst fellow pleb editors.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) (Though I see someone else has since removed the template, so obviously not everyone experienced the ripples....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have also missed “arsehole-gate”. But you’re not allowed to slip back until 31st July, Gareth!! You’re safer off out of it!! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi G. Thanks for your edit here [3]. What my edit summary was referring to was the reference that I added. I just added the bare URL. I know that there are fiddly bits that make it look more official when a reader goes to the references section but whenever I try to work with them I find that I mess things up from time to time. I also know that it doesn't have to have them it just makes it look nicer. Thanks for noticing though. Enjoy your week! MarnetteD | Talk15:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. You are sure right about the film. I have watched it a time or three in months other than December :-) I marvel at the career of Richard Curtis. Enjoyable as far back as Blackadder. He penned one of the most emotional episodes of Dr Who ever with this Vincent and the Doctor gem. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk20:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still chuckling and enjoyed reading the whole page. "Extraordinary" does not give it justice. Thank you for leading me there and also for informing me on the existence of "Silly Things". Cheers! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 10:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This little editing gem occurred while you were away. It was too funny or accurate - I waver back and forth about which - so I wanted to make sure you saw it. MarnetteD | Talk19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pop N. Fresh ... brilliant. As Miranda's mother would be bound to say, "Such fun. Such fun." If you don't understand this, please say! Thanks for showing me IP:86.157.35.226's blessed addition, all too swiftly wiped away ... I wonder if Fraggle even noticed it when battering away with his beat the vandal stick. – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen clips of Miranda's series on The Graham Norton Show as she is a favorite of his. I am budgeting to get them on DVD one day. The Blessed edit is delicious. Maybe someone will post it at Uncyclopedia one day. MarnetteD | Talk20:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Margi recommended that series to me. I am hoping that it shows up on my PBS station soon otherwise that is another DVD set that goes on the list :-) I am glad that she was recognised for her performance!. MarnetteD | Talk20:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ifrah
Hi, I (sort of) undid this edit you made to Georges Ifrah. I'm unsure why you think he's Lebanese: the IP you reverted was only trying to revert previous vandalism, it appears to me. I haven't added back the mention of "French" because perhaps you had some reason for the edit, and it would be better to discuss first. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider your automatic revert. The button you used is reserved for vandals, not for experienced long-time editors like you and I. You deleted the first 30 min. of revised movie-plot, with all references to the previous film, although it is a trillogy. I did not write the whole synopsis, and I agree that it is bloated, but the opening sequences are not what needed to be trimmed. Thanks, Poeticbenttalk15:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Poeticbent(talk)! My reversion was not "automatic". I studied your additions and feel that continual reference to the two earlier films is not required in the plot summary of an encyclopaedic article. I hope you understand. I have restored Tangier district of old Medina, film location – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 15:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the talkback and the imgage. And please use Twinkle with care. It generated your revert edit summary at Bourne Ultimatum. Your decision however did not improve this encyclopaedia contrary to your own statement. I'd like to restore what I wrote and keep editing the article. I do not enjoy wasting time edit-warring or having to complain to WP:ANI about any possible misuse of tools thereafter. Poeticbenttalk16:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have one favor to ask. Other editors seem to agree with me that the thematic link to Supremacy ought to be mentioned. Please do not delete references to the earlier installment. Numerous movie reviewers praised the trilogy as one of the best ever made for this particular reason. (see here). Thanks, Poeticbenttalk16:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your favour is granted ... oh, that does sound pompous. Sorry, I am sincere; I love the three films and thank you for that link and agree with the sentiments shown there entirely; the fourth film should not have been made, in my opinion. Cheers! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a boatload of 19th-century maps that someone seems to have dropped into Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire as if they were suffering from cartographic diarrhea. They appear to be a random collection, without legends, without organization. Could we have a nice comprehensive big fat map of the situation in maybe 1908... That article is a mess too--history organized by every single ruler of some area since the early 1800s. Do you have a magic wand you can wave? Drmies (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. For the Negev map I'm really not familiar enough with the topic to make something useful. There is this category on Commons; are any of those suitable? If not, perhaps you should try asking at the map workshop. As to the Ottoman Empire map, I'd be up for giving that a go if I can find the sources. I've already made several historical maps of Europe, so the Ottoman Empire shouldn't be much more difficult. I'll probably make one pre-WWI map (possibly 1908, possibly some other date - I'll look into it) and a second showing the post-WWI partition. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk)11:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gareth--I plucked your name from the Wiki Map project, where I found it in the history of one of their pages. You have a pretty cool name and I've seen it around, so I figured I'd try you out. I'm going to have a look at those Negev maps--thank you Alphathon, and thank you Gareth. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: as someone else has already pointed out, the link wasn't dead. (I know how to tag dead links, by the way---edit summaries are not the place to make impertinent remarks about other editors, no matter how tempting it may be sometimes.) The reason I removed it was that (a) the news story it linked to made no mention of the fact that it was supposedly supporting, and (b) the link appeared to be instructing the reader to check a user-submitted comment on the story: not only had the comments disappeared, but they would not be considered reliable sources in any event. Therefore, it should never have been used as a reference in the first place--which is why I described it as "unusable". Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening RFBailey (talk), Were you never taught how to discuss without antagonising? Yes, that *someone else* was me. Your tone is, to put it mildly, disagreeable. Any further comment that you should chose to make can be placed on the article's Talk page – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but according to the page history, the subsequent edit [5]was made by "someone else", User:Cnbrb, in fact. I'm sorry if you're offended, but please don't make assumptions or judgements about other editors' actions in edit summaries: that may also be seen as antagonistic behaviour. I have copied my explanation (of why I removed the reference) to the article talk page. Best wishes, --RFBailey (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, please allow me to clarify. The sentence in question refers to the issue of a planned Watford Central station building on Watford High Street (now The Moon Under Water pub). The reference used, to an article the Watford Observer, made no reference to this at all. In fact, the original reference states "see User Comment: Igloo". I am pretty confident that WP:RS does not include comments by newspaper readers as reliable sources. For this reason, the reference was removed. After it was reinstated, it was marked "dead link" - technically, the link is not dead - you can still read the article, but the comments are no longer there. Either way, I am quite sure that the reference was not much use as it did not support the claim. Instead, I did a bit of research and dug up something more relevant, and replaced the reference with a link to a book by a recognised author which describes the former plans. It's always worth a trip to library or a hunt on Google Books to find better links. Hope that is helpful. Assume good faith. Cnbrb (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note you are a little confused about the edit I made to a talk page. Please be assured that I edited no-ones comments on this page, I only changed the formatting between the comments in order to make the conversation easier to read. The actual text of your comment was left intact, in line with the warning you erroneously gave me. Rankersbo (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!- well if you'd just said that in the first place we could have avoided a lot of unpleasantness. Yes I made an error with formatting. No I didn't do anything that isn't permitted, it was a simple mistake and should have been treated as such. Apology follows. Rankersbo (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I made a mistake formatting the Peter Capaldi talk page, messing up your comment. I thought they were too separate comments. Rankersbo (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite agree that the inclusion of the word "film" in the lead sentences of articles with "(film)" as a specifier constitutes redundancy. If an article title contained the specifier "(2009 film)", would we remove the year from the lead as well? I've never really considered the parenthetical text truly part of the title (more of a mechanism), and so it seems inappropriate to me to change the article wording because of it. It also makes the prose (which should be able to stand on its own, in my opinion) slightly less descriptive. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the word "film" following soon after anyway. I'm not quite convinced that the genre terms stand completely on their own (for instance, the word "drama" could also be used on its own to refer to a TV show, so the meaning might not be considered entirely unambiguous), but I can live with it either way. Thanks for the quick response! --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you found my contributions to Comparison of English dictionaries unconstructive. I'm an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teacher and use Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English myself. It's a British-based dictionary although it covers American pronunciation as well. And regarding Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary: it's undoubtedly one of the best Advanced learner's dictionaries. Also see: Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary
Hi Gareth. I made the change because, as far as I'm aware and from what I've read, Alfred Adler remained a socialist in outlook, even after he had ditched his belief in orthodox Marxism. There's a possibility that some readers might interpret the sentence, as it stands, as implying that, whilst sympathetic to socialist programs such as those implemented in red Vienna, the really great minds of Vienna knew better than to actually think of themselves as socialist. Adler complicates the picture, as it is currently outlined. I should have logged the change. Sorry. I edit on Wikipedia fairly piecemeal and know that I ought to be more stringent. Steve Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveallan65 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Steve, First of all, may I say how pleased I am that you have registered. You will find it makes life much easier here. I have undone my reverting of your editing as you will see here Please leave a note if you read this. Good editing! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To revert another user's edit without consultation, as you did, is quite disrespectful. Was there some emergency that prevented you from consulting me beforehand? I know of none. You seem to be unaware that the changes I made were to correct material that is inaccurate and misleading - or perhaps you are aware but simply don't care? If you want an edit war, I will oblige you. Your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continental46 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image. I don't understand your argument that the image is of "too poor quality to keep." The picture is of purposefully lower resolution to adhere to the fair use requirements of copyrighted material. As per quote regarding the "Minimal extent of use" criterion: "The image is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original work." Nevertheless, I have since uploaded a somewhat higher resolution of the picture, its original size. Not to mention that the current James Gandolfini photo is completely out of place in that article. This is neither a scene from the subject matter (Pilot episode), nor even a 1999 Gandolfini production still or smth.
The "Connections to future episodes" section. Alright, my argument for the section's removal solely on the spoiler content basis may not be enough if one follows Wikipedia's policy on not removing spoilers just because they are spoilers in a verbatim manner. I welcome and enjoy analyses of episode connections and references. However, I believe these connections should be handled retrospectively, that is, putting them in the very articles of the linked episodes, in their "references to previous episodes" sections, as it is currently done in other Sopranos episode articles. No information would be lost, just moved to its appropriate articles. On an opinion level, here, I view the "connections to future episodes" as largely useless and counterproductive. I believe the majority of readers reading the episode articles use them as episode guides essentially, be it their first or repeat viewing of the series. Hence, a gratuitously spoilerific section (even if with the content disclaimer heading that it includes spoilers) (a section found only in this first episode article too) could, I believe, discourage them from reading other episode articles with concern of accidental spoilers in them as well. This particular section includes some of the most major spoilers for some of the most minor connections. Some of them are easily spotted even without trying to read the section, but, for instance, just by reading the nearby sections and inadvertently glancing at it or smth. The section, I believe, does more damage, then it provides benefit, and, as I said, moving the connections to their appropriate episode articles would not lose any of this data anyway.
Thank you TheBearPaw (talk) for your comprehensive and lucid response to my reverting your editing on a sensitive article. I shall copy this thread to the article's Talk page so that all interested editors may participate. I shall make the point that this is the pilot episode and references within this article to what will happen are, to me, relevant. Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Gareth Griffith-Jones. I was unable to thank you discreetly by clicking that neat little "thank" link that appears on the Revision history pages 'cos your edit on my talk page is/was transcluded, so I'm afraid you get the long-winded version here, taking up valuable space and in full view of all. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I was thinking more of the advantages from a discreetness point of view, but you're right, of course: the occasional personalised message does help put a perspective on things... at least for those [of us] who are of a certain age/generation. Whoops! Better stick to that neat little "thank" link whenever possible – we don't want all these young upstarts to discriminate against any old fogeys that happen to be out there. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casualty Series 28 Editing
I have been putting on information from the BBC website. If you don't believe me please look around. I don't see how me giving correct information can give you the right to threaten to ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPATH10 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ CPATH10 (talk It is in violation of copyright (The BBC's) We do NOT copy material from publications. We compose our own, otherwise we are in violation of copyright. How can an original "short (plot) summary" be written PRIOR to the broadcast of the relevant episode? Answer: "It can't". Compose your own after you have watched the episode. – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rain-check, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
You have left a message describing my recent edits to a number of school page as "vandalism". Explain why. My edits were to add the objective fact that these schools were among those reported as adopting Section 28 type policies. That isn't an opinion: it's a fact, widely reported in the UK national press, including as a front page headline story: I cited the Independent newspaper of 20 August. Furthermore, the UK Department for Education has ordered these schools to change their policy, though they have not yet done so: therefore an authoritative body also considers this a fact, and indeed an important fact about the school. By taking my edits down, you are not conducting impartial editing but imposing censorship. Why don't you want Wiki readers to know these schools have anti-gay policies, Gareth?"
You recently agreed you were mistaken in deleting my edits concerning certain schools with a Section 28 anti-gay policy, and kindly reverted these. Now you have deleted my edit to a school in which I give factual information about the school's finances, quoted from its officially published Annual Report & Financial Statement, which I cite. Please explain why.
Thanks Gareth. Actually, I'll edit it myself a bit, too much detail. I've tried registering but after 15 attempts at a username, all taken, I give up. Mark 86.177.66.139 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth. I see that you undid an edit I made to the Udacity article. I restored part of the edit. For my reasons, please see the Udacity talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.69.232 (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks odd as the opening sentence to the Lead paragraph: "Udacity is a private for-profit educational corporation founded by ..." Why does it need to be so prominent? Are you not making a *point* here? Seems so to me, but ... I shall leave it as your original revision. What do other interested editors think, I wonder? Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Better to reach out to you for help on these sentences, some don't have to be changed but I need input because maybe its just me:
"A local girl, whom Dickie had impregnated, drowns herself when he refuses to help her financially. Dickie begins to tire of Ripley," The sentences seem a bit unrelated especially the girl drowning herself.. its just there without adding anything though obviously it should be kept. Though the next sentence below where he confronts him does seem like it works.
"Whilst out to sea together, Dickie lashes out when Ripley confronts him about his behaviour, and a fight ensues during which Ripley strikes Dickie with an oar in a fit of rage. Ripley beats Dickie to death with the oar." Seems really elongated and I really think for one scene it was better how it was before, I think it should be one sentence.
"As a gesture to Ripley, Dickie invites Ripley to sail with him for last trip to San Remo." Maybe leave out the gesture bit as we already know hes tiring of him or the sailing, the importance is in the last trip as Dickie says this because he tires of Ripley.
For the San Remo bit, they go there and watch a jazz band play, at the table Dickie confronts Ripley about his supposed education and interests. Then they decide to hire out a small boat for two to the sea. Just FYI in regards to that paragraph.--JTBX (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"investigate. However, MacCarron reveals to Ripley that Mr. Greenleaf has ordered the investigation" investigation used twice in quick succession, readability?
1 – I agree, JTBX. They do not link although as you say the local girl bit should be included. Perhaps it might be worth mentioning that Ripley witnesses them together (?)
2 – Cannot really understand your objections here. To me it says enough without labouring the description. Reads easily.
3 – Okay – leave out "As a gesture to ..." Had not been over-keen on that myself.
4 – Yes, I know. Although I don't have it here, I remember the film well. I don't like the "They hire" (not accurate) and cannot abide the "hire out" expression (again not so ... the boat owner does that). Why mention "... for two ..." (redundant). "... hire out a small boat for two to the sea." is not readable.
5 – Could not agree with you more. My error – I have just made this revision: "Ripley is disquieted when Mr. Greenleaf hires American private detective Alvin MacCarron to carry out a thorough check. However, MacCarron reveals to Ripley that Mr. Greenleaf has ordered the investigation be dropped and ..." What do you think? thorough check is the definition of investigation. I look forward to hearing back from you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
1 – Yes, I agree, perhaps something like " which Ripley witnesses" at the end of the sentence.
2 – I'm not objecting to the writing, my main gripe-which it has always been- is how to trim a plot to around the 700 word guideline without sacrificing everything else, and one sentence seems good enough for this one scene, when so much more happens in the rest of the film, (in other words the rest of the film is not respected enough to be given equal treatment), perhaps again this is just me as I mentioned but this is the same thing I have been trying to get to on other film plots but lets leave that for now.
3 – Yeah, leave it, or include it by trimming I don't know, we just need to show its their final trip.
4 – Sorry about this but I was commenting here in case you didn't remember the film but you do, and everything here is just a comment, not what should be included.
Thank you JTBX for your prompt reply. I have made a revision: "A local girl, whom Dickie had impregnated, drowns herself when he refuses to help her financially. Ripley secretly witnesses their final encounter." What do you think? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon
Should we file an ANI on him? He was acting standoffish as well as slinging unverified allegations of sockpuppeting and block evasion against us. Plus the edit warring. Rusted AutoParts14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my edit of the subject. I also undid my edit as soon as I saw the error. I am trying to compile my first book on the subject and would like to edit out some of the content that is not relevant to the subject I'm trying to address. Haven't quite figured it out yet ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realbobbk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received your message that you undid my recent entry to the Case Western Reserve University page. Yes, I think you made an error. I had updated the university's LGBT rankings with the most current information, replacing rankings that were dated.
I am the media relations director for the university and would like to have the information I added reinstated. How do I do that?
Hello Gareth Griffith-Jones, thank you for correcting my mistakes, but if you listen to Sunny 93.1 WNTO, it appears it has shifted to a classic hits format, check out the facebook page Sunny Wnto, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbonnett97 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, you're a sweetheart! I've been working on this Sullivan page, and when I saw the substituted photo, I assumed I'd made a mistake. Actually, Sully asked me to put in maybe a different photo, but I hadn't gotten to it yet. I don't have many of him. Shall I undo, or do you want to? Haven't looked at email in days and owe you a long letter, and a less complaining one than last time. Big hugs.
Oh well, I wasn't sure if it would bother you, but glad you are revelling in your new-found notoriety! :-) Yes, I spotted someone's trying to hijack the article for campaigning purposes. I was looking around for an appropriate template to stick on to encourage discussion and neutral editing, but maybe it's just not worth it! Cnbrb (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Quite! Anything for a quiet life!! :-) 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I think it's outrageous - I don't get mentioned at all! Obviously I need to get myself a Stiki Stick, to bash other editors' additions and help create the right impression ("he seems to do nothing but alter and modify a wide range of posts using a tool called STiki")! That's a classic! "Dark happenings" indeed - talk about paranoia! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.
If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!
I share your smile only because we survived what I assume was meant in all seriousness. Did you read the Signposts? One was graced with a beautiful image of a place of learning, the other with the news that its photographer and I need to be restricted and admonished because "unfortunately we have assume the worst". A bit more on top (will put the image there) and bottom of my talk, - I keep singing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow "the wall of text" and have come away brimming in awe of your resolute intellect and your lucid judgment. You are evidently a tenacious lady who refuses to accept hectoring discourse. No, I failed to find your place of learning ... are you able to link me to it, please? Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones| The Welsh Buzzard: Cardiff born and bred | — 11:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "my" place, Europe's place ;) ("largest public cultural space in Europe"). The pic is now on top of my talk (was in Signpost of 21 August), along the encouraging quote from a female almost-victim of the Taliban, entered by an almost-victim of "the wall", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzard, please don't be sad. I know the feeling since 2010, and so far I always "survived" losing people whose collaboration I enjoyed. The first time was the Grace Sherwood drama, - just now they brought the infamous article back to FA status, healing a wound of three years! - I had a red cat(egory) on my user for a reason, and now I have three. I am not sure how I would have survived this time, but it didn't happen. So let's see what we can do together. I have to ask for help every time I want an infobox for an article which is not brand new, including those I wrote myself, yes, kafkaesque. See BWV 138 and here, buzzard, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toll conducts the choir. They don't have a regular conductor, play also for us, first time. The last orchestra we had would have discussed every measure for five minutes, just like ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was only trying to contribute. I read what I should not have read and only added a warning "Major Spoiler" in brackets, for future readers not to have the same experience as me, without editing or change the meaning of the actual content.
i belive you may be interested on Welsh settlements at Patagonia Argentina (South America) some links Trevelin official Government website http://www.trevelin.gov.ar, other about Argentina's Patagonia welsh migration http://www.glaniad.com you can find more at google but those are very good, i have some family that is related to the founders of Trevelin back in the XIX century, if you are not interested on any of this, excuse me, i just guess you may be interested. kind regards
I know this is probably pretty basic, but I want to change my user page from terminally dreary to mildly interesting. How do you create those little boxes "This user is..."? I've tried to find it in the help pages, but failed. Thanks & best wishes from autumnal Blaenffos, Tony Holkham (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hello Tony. Gareth is probably sleeping at the moment so I thought I would leave you this link Wikipedia:Userboxes. The page will give you in on most of the info that you need. If you are computer savvy you can create your own. You are also free to copy ones that others have created and adapt them to your user page. I hope this is of some help. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The comment "possible vandalism" was a reference to the edits by anon 80.78.78.171 and not yours. Pls check page history. Besides, in contrary to the first news, Kurtiz was found already dead at his home. This is why I changed the sentence by omitting phrase "the hospital". Moreover, at this time being, it is not certain whether he died before he hit his head or afterwards. Anyway, we will know it soon. Cheers. --CeeGee 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello CeeGee! I realised that, after I "saved" — but too late; the deed was done! I can assure you that I had studied the History page before reinstating my earlier editing. Thank you for visiting my page and taking the trouble. Sincerely, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your efforts. Cheers. --CeeGee 11:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edits re Abyssopelagic
Hi there,
We don't know each other, but we're both friends with Abyssopelagic. I'm her neighbor and she's been unable to get out of bed for several days, but she asked if I would please say thanks for what you've done, or maybe it was "all you've done". (I guess she means on WP.) She also says to say she'll get an MRI and other medical tests soon. I hope I'm remembering everything...
I am used to speaking only with Brambleberry, my tutor/WP adopter, as a rule, and I feel shy talking with you, but Abyss says you're a good man. I suppose I'm not supposed to tell you my real name.
I owe Brambleberry about a dozen emails, but I promised Abyssie I'd write to you first. Oh, Abyss said to tell you "di olch", which sounds like code. I suppose it means something to you two. (Don't tell her I said this, but I think she has a crush on you.)
She also said her computer has been frozen for a few days and she might come to borrow mine if she feels well enough. Well, of course she can! So maybe you'll hear from her herself. Abyss was very anxious to speak with you, so I hope I can get her out of bed and over here.
I know this is a very personal letter, so you might not want to keep it on your Page. But Abyssie was anxious that I write to you, and I hope you don't mind.
She says you are a gentleman, and I expect you to act as one. Abyssopelagic is a great girl and you had better treat her right!
Good evening sweet emissary! Abbs has told me lots about you and as you know we have "bumped-up" against each other, in the best possible way, on another WP article page — and now today on 'another' page. I have been getting more and more anxious about Abbs She told me about the MRI on August 15 and thought she would have results by now. She has told me your given name, but I shan't reveal it here. Have no fears such as those declared in your sixth paragraph; if I can bring some brightness into her life I shall be exultant. Thank you for writing to me. Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones| The Welsh Buzzard: Cardiff born and bred | — 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say Billy, there they go; a thousand buses in a row; no Joe, them is trucks; Some with cows in; some with ducks. Hope all is going well for you and yours.
I actually have some pieces off a Norden bombsight in my collection. One is the finest little electric motor you've ever seen 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your recent edit to Clarity (Zedd song). I'm happy to co-operate: if a YouTube citation is not acceptable for a music video then what is? Vevo? I'm just struggling to find something more reliable than a verified YouTube upload. Cheers, DJUnBalanced (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page that is there now, includes in-accurate information as it doesn't mirror the Youth in Focus website. I would just like to know why you reverted my good faith edit before I made any other changes.
I'm not sure why you undid my entirely accurate change to my own previous item on the page for the film "Love Actually". The previous Blu-Ray released in the US contained the UK version of the film, the new Blu-Ray contains the US version. This is very useful information. I have reposted and clarified my item a bit, as I used the word US and UK "cut", which could be misleading, as the cuts of the film are identical, only the music tracks are changed.Jamesluckard (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning James, My reason was stated in my edit summary here ... for you to open/begin with "That..." was appalling English and what followed was, to me, uncomprehensible. However, your current revision is okay, although I feel it is written the wrong way round — UK should feature first with the US version following it. Please tell me when you have read this and feel free to disagree. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 06:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that, per WP:BURDEN, we need WP:RSing for the information about the differences between the US and UK versions on the various DVD/Bluray releases. I would think that they are out there somewhere - perhaps on a DVD review website. It would be nice if some explanation could be given as to why the songs in question were moved but I know that would probably be harder to find. MarnetteD | Talk15:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, I recognize that opening with "That" was not correct English. It was an orphaned word from my original item, which I overlooked as I revised the item. The rest of the item covers a fairly confusing topic - the music differences in the film. I've tried to make it as clear as possible. If there's a clearer way to make the same point, I welcome it. I know we're both here to help people on Wikipedia, so I'm not mad at you or anything. I just didn't understand why you deleted an important new piece of information - the first release of the US version of the film on Blu-Ray this month. I agree, actually, that the UK version should come first, as this is a UK film. I'll revise the item to hopefully clarify things. As for the reason for the different music, I'm sure it's due to Kelly Clarkson being well-known in the US but not in Britain. Thus her song was not included in the UK version of the film. Writer/director Richard Curtis almost always does subtly different versions of his films for different markets and talks about it in interviews. Best, James. (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning James, Many thanks for your comprehensive reply. Do as you outline here and add your revision. I shall then add a template requesting supporting reference/s, in the event that you cannot. From where are you getting the information? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, I'm so glad we can chat and be friendly about this. There's so much bickering on the internet, but you seem to be a thoroughly reasonable person:) Which information are you referring to? The fact that the new US Blu-Ray will include the US cut of the film? That's from a Blu-Ray forum I visit, where someone already has a copy of the disc. You can find the discussion here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=226041&page=3 As it's a fairly minor difference, I'm not sure it will be caught in many reviews of the Blu-Ray. Only obsessive fans of the film notice small changes like these:) As for other changes to Curtis films, "Love Actually" also had the entire subplot of the nude body doubles removed for most Asian markets. His film "The Boat That Rocked" had the biggest changes for the US, losing 30 mins and gaining a new name - "Pirate Radio". "The Tall Guy" was also shortened a bit for the US. Notting Hill had an alternate version of the song "She" at the opening and closing used in some markets. The film of "Bridget Jones's Diary" that Curtis worked on also had significant changes - an alternate end credits sequence and numerous "British" terms that Americans wouldn't understand being redubbed, such as "Alsatians" being changed to "wild dogs". (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with your opening comment. You could for now add that link as a stop-gap reference and then try to find something less personal to replace it. The rest of your post is fascinating. I do like all of Curtis' work as you clearly do too. All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have started a discussion about this, but I thought it would be uncontroversial. You have this morning removed the addition with the comment: "somewhat contradictory comment .. all covered in the preceeding paragraph". So I have evidently misjudged it.
The point that I was trying to make was that in the recent IRB laws there has been a change. In the past there was only a maximum length and width (100x70m). Now, for tests at least, there is also a minimum. The pitch must be at least 94x68m. That doesn't contradict what is written in the previous paragraph; it adds a new fact that is missing from the article at the moment. I'm not sure when the IRB added this (the last version of the laws which I have is from 2007 and there was nothing about a minimum size then), but the change is significant. It is the main reason why Leicester Tigers' Welford Road will not be a 2015 World Cup venue. The playing area at Welford Road is too small.
I came to Wikipedia looking for complete information on pitch dimensions and when I couldn't find it, I updated the page. I think that is how we are supposed to cooperate in the development and maintenance of Wikipedia. I would like to roll back your deletion of my edit.
What are your thoughts? Maybe I am missing something?
Please remember that you can sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ — this will automatically insert your "signature" — i.e. your username and a date stamp. The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article "Tablighi Jamaat" Sub heading: 6.1 Criticisms
Hello Gareth,
This is with regard to the last sentence of the Sub heading: 6.1 Criticisms wherein it states that "It is also prohibited in Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[51] India is considering banning the organisation."
Although the movement has been banned in countries like Russia, there has never been any talk or article about banning it India.
This same has been referred from the note number 51 by James foundation article but it never appeared in any other article worldwide that the movement might be banned in Indian authorities whether security or political authorities.
Hence, we do not have any legitimate data for the same. I hope this sentence will be removed.
I am questioning the authenticity of the information "India is considering banning the organisation". since it has never been published anywhere in India.
With Regards,
Rakib Akhtar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.58.244 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Rakib Akhtar, I have moved your original post to the article's Talk page together with a copy of your post here. You will read here that I have asked other informed editors to get involved as this is a subject outside my knowledge. Please leave a note so that I know you've read this. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to apologize if I broke the Wikipedia procedure when modifying contents. It was not my intention to create or do any sort of vandalizing.
In the discussion about Dominican Republic and the application of Jus Solis, it is given as fact that racial discrimination and exclusion of haitian citizens cite: " to exclude most Dominicans of Haitian origin from citizenship, even those previously recognized by the Dominican state" were the main cause of the modification of the Constitution. As of right now, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic ruled about how citizenship is obtained in the Dominican Republic (2) and also the current Constitution (Article 18, numeral 2) defines Dominicans as:
2) Whoever holds Dominican Nationality before the application of this Constitution. (1)
These documents demonstrates that the current information provided by wikileaks is mere speculative and does not correspond to the truth.
Please advice how to proceed to change or modify the current information or if possible add these clarifications to the paragraph and note that the accusations made in the information are under debate.
Thank you for your explanation. I had not considered your revision to be "Vandalism" but rather more of a "Test edit". You removed a large chunk of copy without giving any form of reason for doing so. It is always better to alter copy in small revisions and wait for a reaction. If none, then carry out another small change. Et cetera, et cetera ... Try it now! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Post script: Please leave a note here to let me know that you have seen this post. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth, thank you for improving my edits I tried to look for a cast photo including Doreen Mantle but there were none that was the best one i could find.
I made a change to the Carbon Sequestration page, and received a message from you that you'd undone it because it "did not appear constructive." I'm not sure what that means- I'd updated a link from a broken one to one (of the same report) that was not broken. I'm not sure how much more constructive it could be!
Please accept my apology Erumley. You are correct ... I have been to the article and I see you have restored your revision. I have removed the notice (a template) from your Talk page. Leave a note here when you see this, please. Thank you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gareth, I'm writing in regard to your changes on the e-Stewards (it's with a small e and not a capitalized E, it's a trademarked name http://e-stewards.org/). I work for e-Stewards and can tell you that the section about e-Stewards certification including R2 practices is completely false. You can refer to this page on e-Stewards's website to confirm http://e-stewards.org/certification-overview/ R2 Practices are indeed not included in our certification. Also, we are not legally allowed to promote one e-Stewards recycler over another so the section about e-Cycle needs to be deleted as well. You can say that they are the first mobile buyback company to achieve e-Stewards certification, but you cannot blatantly advertise their services as you have here "e-Cycle collects mobile phones and tablets from businesses, government agencies and major organizations, reimbursing them for mobile devices that retain value and recycling all others at no charge"
I respectfully request that you accurately depict our company on Wikipedia and make the necessary edits. If you have any further questions or need further elaboration on the e-Stewards certification program, feel free to contact me back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.187.16 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post here. I see that you have removed the copy again. An edit summary might have prevented my re-instating your first removal. It looked like vandalism. I presume you have noticed my editing tonight ... my edit summary is self-explanatory. Any other issues? Please leave a note when you read this. Thanks. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Recent Edit
Hello Gareth,
I removed that large section from Friend of my Youth because it was about the indivudual story, not the story collection, and therefore didn't really belong. It was also original research. I won't revert it back because I don't want to cause problems, but I think the edit was fair. (I explained in my edit summary, which, I get the impression, was not read.) 75.156.68.21 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The copy is under the section heading, Plot, so therefore does not require references as the book is the source. I certainly did read your edit summary and I thank you for it. I shall re-instate your revision and we can both "wait and See". Please leave a note here when you have read this post. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Another issue is that it is about only one story in a collection of ten, which at the very least needs to be clarified - and there nine other summaries should then be added. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg){kind=small}
Poeticbent talk 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk),
or 
button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
