Jump to content

User talk:JPG-GR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiolbx (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 9 June 2008 (→‎Why?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The current date and time is 17 August 2024 T 20:24 UTC.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPG-GR.

This is the User talk page for JPG-GR, where you can send messages and comments to JPG-GR.

move request

I had no idea there was more bureaucracy to deal with in a requested page move; thanks for cleaning up after me. --barneca (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


what?

What was the thing about banning me about? I don't even know what the hell is goin on... this "Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others." never happend, and kinda tells me a lot about you. --radiolbx (talk)

Umm.... what are you talking about? JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this vandalism. JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have never listened to the show have you? That is what he is called on the air from time to time. I used to work with him. He was OK with it, but if you look, I took it off right away just in case...why didn't you see that I took it off myself? --radiolbx —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Damn, I have been looking at some of the crap you undo...you're a cock...

Move request at Mother Supreme Council of the World

Hi, You recently removed a move request that I had added to the above article, saying it was misplaced... could you please explain what was wrong? The move request was made in good faith, and I tried to follow the instructions listed at WP:NAME... did I not follow the directions properly or something? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move request templates belong on the Talk page of the article. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OCR (examination board) move request

Hi. I see that you finished up the vote on Talk:OCR (examination board) and removed it from Wikipedia:Requested moves, saying there was no consensus. I understand the no consensus part (as I was the only person to vote!), but still have a query. Seeing as the page clearly breaks Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) at its current title and my proposed move (to Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations) follows the guidelines, why should it stay at its current title? I don't see why the status quo should outweigh Wikipedia's naming conventions. Could you clarify the situation for me, please? As far as I can see, this is an uncontroversial move (which is why I tried to do it twice) that was contested by another user with no real justification who then couldn't be bothered to vote in the poll on the name! Thank you in advance. - Green Tentacle (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSABBR is a guideline and not a policy and secondly (and more importantly), polling is not a substitute for discussion. In the end, I weighed your argument for expanding the acronym per WP:MOSABBR against User:Islander's argument against per WP:COMMONNAMES and declared no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I understand (since Islander pointed it out to me) the difference between policy and guidelines, but, as far as I can see, these two guidelines don't recommend different things. The common name of the exam board is indeed 'OCR' - both of the sets of guidelines are in agreement that OCR would therefore be the best place for it except OCR stands for lots of things, so there is no way the article could ever be at OCR. Therefore the WP:MOSABBR recommends the spelled-out name; WP:COMMONNAMES, on the other hand, has no guideline for what to do when the common name is unavailable and does not in any way suggest having the common name with disambiguating parenthesis appended. Basically, I cannot see any guideline suggesting the article should be at OCR (examination board), but I can see a guideline saying that it should be at Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations. (Obviously, I do think that OCR (examination board) is a reasonable redirect.)
I have tried discussing the issue, but after one reply, Islander appears to have lost interest. I started the vote and listed the article on WP:Requested moves to generate discussion, but unfortunately it did not generate any.
Again, thank you in advance for your reply. - Green Tentacle (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you wrong?

Hello JPG-GR , you closed a move request here on the 24 May. Since then there has been more requests request made, one in fact on the same day you closed the discussion here, it was later removed by one of the Article Mentor’s appointed after and ArbCom ruling. In addition we have had Straw Polls based on the opinion that you were in fact wrong in you conclusion of no consensus. The same editor then started another Straw Poll, again suggesting that the consensus was to move the article. They have now placed another Move Request on the Article. Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? --Domer48 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any policy that says you can't beat a dead horse, so-to-speak. If the arguments can convince someone to make the move this time, so be it. JPG-GR (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

For pointing out my mistakes. I'm not too familiar with the process, as I've only done it once before. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gercaliu

Thank you for your help who to move a page. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Those two articles, WIDL and WKYO needed some cleanup. Why did you revert the template for AM station data, they are the same thing, just less words. As far as the capitalization issues... why must Michigan be michigan? Can't it be either? I understand cleaning up the infobox but reverting my other edits to cleanup the articles makes no sense. The references section looks better than sources. Sources for what? For the entire article? Again, I'm pretty sure you have a personal vendetta against my edits, and there is no reason for that to be. I am only trying to improve articles.--Milonica (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to cleanup the infobox mess, most of the other stuff was incidental. As for the templates, they are not the standard templates as recommended by WP:WPRS. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not telling you how to do your job, just next time you feel like reverting an edit, make sure you are reverting what is wrong and not everything an editor has put on there. I would honestly like to know what you have against me. First you revert my edits, now you attack pages I have created? Do you have a problem with me? Honestly I feel like I am being attacked for editing and helping with radio station articles. You don't see me reverting things YOU have created. Milonica (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Mr. JPG-GR does a lot of "clean-up" that seams more like it's done to give JPG something to do...why must you go over EVERYTHING that people do? On the WJZJ page you took off breaks in the page that seperated the info, you even mocked it in the reason you gave for the "fix" then you do the same thing you took off there to the WKHQ page...are you the only person who can edit here or can others do it to?User:radiolbx

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPG-GR&oldid=218232700"