Nota bene – I shall reply to messages wherever they are posted.
If you write something here ... my reply will also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page ... I shall be watching it for a while.
"Be bold" has become an informal slogan of Wikipedia
...it is inappropriate to cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is updated in real time. So from the time you cite a Wikipedia page to the time another person looks up your citation, the page may have changed. Citations are usually only applicable to static publications that do not change once they are published. Wikipedia is not a static publication, it is dynamic!—it changes every minute. In this sense, Wikipedia is not a reliable citable source.
How reliable is Wikipedia as a general resource? Very reliable. Most of the content on Wikipedia is accurate, and many subjects are updated faster than the news. But, Wikipedia is subject to being edited by almost anyone and any time, and the edits may be biased, out of date, incorrect, or malicious (vandalism). Therefore, it is advisable to double-check what you learn in Wikipedia against other sources.
Keep in mind that many volunteers monitor Wikipedia for errors. Since there are so many people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, and using watchlists, incorrect information is usually spotted and corrected quickly.
Some argue that new errors are also introduced all the time, so that the overall accuracy rate is not really improving. Nevertheless, by encouraging people to help with correcting articles, validating content, and providing useful references, errors will eventually be greatly reduced.
The more accurate Wikipedia becomes, the more it attracts additional contributors. It is a self-reinforcing cycle!
Salisbury Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in the city of Salisbury in Wiltshire, England. Built in early English Gothic style, it was constructed between 1220 and 1258. This photograph, taken in 2014, shows the interior of the cathedral, looking eastwards towards the high altar through the tall and narrow nave. It has three levels: a tall pointed arcade, an open gallery, and a small clerestory. In the foreground is an unconventional modern baptismal font, installed in September 2008. Designed by the water sculptor William Pye, it is the largest working font in any British cathedral. The font is cruciform in shape, and has a 10-foot-wide (3.0 m) vessel filled to its brim with water, designed so that the water overflows in filaments through each corner into bronze gratings embedded in the cathedral's stone floor.Photograph credit: David Iliff
Many article titles are disambiguated with parenthetic qualifiers, like this: [[Self (psychology)]]. But when you want to include such a link in the body of an article, this would look rather awkward. So all you have to do is use the "pipe trick", like this: [[Self (psychology)|]]. Notice the "|" character stuck in there at the end of the link? That makes the link look like this: Self, without having to type the name of the link after the pipe!
This trick also works with namespaces, so that [[Wikipedia:Tip of the day|]] (again notice the pipe character) displays like this: Tip of the day.
I cannot tell you how pleased I was earlier this evening when I saw your greeting. I was on my way out then, hence the delayed response. I have always regarded you as my mentor, and I've missed your influence.
I did leave you a message in the section "Huh?" on your talk page on December 19, 2011, and then I too had a break from Wikipedia until January 10. Since then I have kept at it. Did you want me to do anything particular? Hope all is well with you,
I am glad to hear back from you, and glad you are still here and working. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. I am at work on an article right now, which is why I have not been editing on a daily basis for the last month or so. But, still at it after that much needed break. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You kindly said that I should ask if I needed your help. I promise not to be a pest, but in view of your considerable experience in coping with the vandals and the like, could you just tell me what happens next after my posting a report on the Administrators' noticeboard, regarding continuous vandalism and disruptive behaviour by a non-registered IP at an Open Proxy address. I don't understand the next stage of the process. Do I just wait... will I be contacted?
The poster never fills in an Edit summary and warnings posted on the IP Talk page never receive an acknowledgement. Please reply on your page; I have noticed that is how you prefer to operate. Thanks, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay. I saw your message earlier today when I stopped in to look up something, but had no time then to reply. As it is, I am not really sure what to say. I have only been involved with ANI in the capacity of adding comments after others began the process. I have never made an ANI posting myself. The whole process seems rather arcane to me, which is why I have avoided whenever possible. I am sorry I cannot be of more help.
Can you give me further specifics about the problem you are having with the vandal? And a link to the ANI post?
Hi, Thank you for your reply early this morning ( 04:05 hrs. over here)
Please don't concern yourself. I had assumed that you had experienced this action several times during the past years. I understand fully that you are avoiding the tedium of edit changing supervision nowadays and concentrating on proper, productive work. I do a little myself, but I am still not confident enough to start an article from scratch like you have so often.
Just to let you know.. and I hope I'm not tempting fate... that open proxy site has remained quiet since taking action . I did a follow-up with the admin involved a few days ago. Still keeping a very close eye on The Sopranos page and The Godfather page. Had some success on the Sopranos' Info'box/"starring... have a look, if you are not too busy! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that whilst a long list of guest actors features in this info' box, the "Starring" line is missing. I have added the four main actors/characters to the edit page, but, for some unknown reason, I cannot make the edit appear on the article page.
Any help would be welcome. Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's deliberate. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. Jay32183 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense when I think about it. Although, in this instance, it being the pilot, the omission of the names of the regular actors might appear to be unusual.
"Guest stars" or just guest actors? (possible edit request)
Hi,
Just wondering, when actors have appeared in an episode of a tv series but did not have starring roles (e.g. all the names from Amber Tamblyn down in the infobox for this episode of Buffy), is it appropriate to list them under "Guest stars" (especially if they were relatively unknown at the time)? And if not, would it be possible to add another parameter, for example "Also featuring", or perhaps even change "Guest stars" to "Guest actors" or something? (This issue may be related to the one raised in the previous section, since that article on an episode of the Sopranos has a ridiculously long-looking, to me anyway, "Guest stars" list - though I don't watch that show, so I have no idea, maybe they were all billed as guest stars.)
Regarding The Sopranos (episode), it is the style of The Sopranos to feature the names of the "regulars" during the opening sequence – which is the same, every episode, except for the removal of The Twin Towers after the destruction of 9/11 – and list everyone else who appeared in that particular episode during the closing sequence.
By "possible edit request" I was referring to where I asked if it might be possible to change the template to say "Guest actors" instead of "Guest stars" (or possibly, if people hated that idea for some reason, to add another line/parameter called something like "Also featuring" (or, I suppose, "guest actors"), for non-"star"ring actors (though there will probably be people who hate any change to any given template, I suppose, *sigh*).
Especially considering what you wrote about the way they do it on The Sopranos, it sounds to me like the former solution would be a lot simpler and easier.
[[(cur|prev) 11:23, March 29, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) m . . (3,108 bytes) (+1) . . (Subst: “stars” → “actors” More accurate title (see The Sopranos (episode) discussion page.)]]
on the Template for television series episodes... waiting for the proverbial to hit the fan...
Hi Gareth!
Thanks very much for making that edit! I was too cowardly to do it myself.
Hopefully it won't cause any uproars :)
Kind regards,
-- TyrS chatties 12:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have agreed with your edit of today, and I have shown my support by following your revision today, with a 'token' edit, in order to leave an edit summary comment to that effect. However, I do not understand your comment. Which decision? Please clarify.
Allow der may Senior frende! Tank yu forra messaggin mee inne maye tokke peigge. Datz goodda that yu showwa supportit too meh! Yu wrotte mee yestaddey datt yu didinty anderstanda mine comment.. Imma very sorree, paisà Sir, it musta bee mine italian xcent.... donna worry mucchee aboot desicions mine friende ... I hoppa I anderstanda whatta yu wrotta to becozzy alzo your cuestionny iz obscurre too me twoo! Itte musta bee your Welsha xcent! Teik itt eezy! Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buongiorno Maurice! Come stai? Mi piace. Devo parlati ...
(cur | prev) 10:33, May 30, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (109,031 bytes) (+2) . . (→Depiction of stereotypes: I can see no problem with retaining this dablink added by the previous editor) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:17, May 30, 2012 Maurice Carbonaro (talk | contribs) m . . (109,029 bytes) (+4) . . (→Depiction of stereotypes: Hyperlinked "(...) Italian Americans (...)". Please feel free to undo this change... motivating... if possible, your decision. Thanks.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:00, May 30, 2012 RepublicanJacobite (talk | contribs) . . (109,025 bytes) (+171) . . (Various fixes in infobox.) (undo)
Ecco! ... sua "decisione" ... puoi constatare! Cosa dici mai?
Thanks for putting me right on this one
Actually, I was only putting into acceptable format, the edit which someone else... Jmaxmiller11... had just posted...you should read it..! Jmaxmiller11
<ref name=Spagat /><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |title=Wife of Kony video director filmed running naked through streets says he was suffering from 'reactive psychosis' due to stress and exhaustion|publisher=Daily Mail|date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>
Good evening GreatOrangePumkin, Thank you very much for your amazingly fast response to my citing problem earlier this evening. I would have replied earlier, but initially had mistakenly read your posting together with your (very attractive) signature as the first part of David's reply to me. He had not left a line break. It was only on going back to it just now that I realised my misunderstanding. With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The brown-throated sloth (Bradypus variegatus) is the most common species of three-toed sloth. It is found in the forests of South and Central America. Males and females are both about 42–80 cm (17–31 in) in total body length and weigh 2.25–6.3 kg (5–14 lb).Photo: Christian Mehlführer
Thanks Nadia (again!) - a better answer than I would have given, and actually quite educational for myself, too - I'm sure that in my editing, I'm inserting inappropriately-lengthed dashes all over the place! (probably a couple in that last sentence...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and thank you from me, Nadiatalent. Your reply has led me on and on, to learn more and more!
Hi Gareth, thank you for your thanks! I haven't read all of the Dash page myself, but it looks as if many hours of amusement could be had perusing it and either putting some of its recommendations into effect or disputing them. Best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be the first person doing it? I prefer consistency and I'm guessing the consensus is the same. Have a look at any other article. By the way, if you name the lead section "Prologue", it no longer becomes the lead but just another section. In fact, the lead section disappears and the article begins with the contents. Rather ugly in my opinion, and others' too it seems, which is why it's not done. Ever. Also, it's not a story or novel for it to have a "prologue" or "epilogue" or whatever; it's an article. Feudonym (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sh'w mae Gareth, I created the Cymru button with the template name {{User:Daicaregos/CymruButton}}. It should work if you cut 'n paste. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dim problem. I added your page to my watchlist when you joined WikiProject Wales. Your edit summary earlier (Added Wales flag and rugby union supporter) made me look at your Userpage and I noticed the red-linked template. Glad it's sorted. It's always good to see Y Ddraig Goch flying. Daicaregos (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that you're looking at your watchlist. Find an edit which shows an edit summary of the type you are thinking of. Go to the left-hand end of that line, where there are two links "diff" and "hist". Right-click on the "diff" one, and from the menu which appears, select "Copy link location". Come back here, open the edit window, and at the bottom, right-click and select "Paste". Sign it, and save.
Great service from both of you – it never ceases to impress me how helpful you "seniors" are to "the new boy". The editor who welcomed me – RepublicanJacobite – inspired me constantly and I used him as a role model until Christmas – thank you, Redrose – and thank you, Vadmium. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)
Edit conflict
Hello Redrose,
You were most helpful last night with regard to my question. I am sorry that I failed to pass an example over in time, but my typing was lost due to our conflicting editing, and by the time I re-did it you had probably retired to your bed.
This happened to me once before and each time I panicked and lost the lot. This time a bit appeared. (see Edit summary "Ooops, how did that get there?" by Vadmium)
I was instructed to "merge", but the Help page did not help me learn what I should do.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 6:21 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012 (UTC+0)
The main information page is Help:Edit conflict. If you do get an edit conflict, you will see two edit windows; the upper one contains what the page has become since you started editing (but contains none of your edit), the lower one is the edit window that you have been typing into. The intention is that you compare one with the other, adjust the top one to match the bottom one, and then save. This can be difficult, especially since if you had chosen to edit one section, the top one will still contains the entire page whereas the bottom one will contain only the one section that you were editing. I normally find that it's usually easiest to:
ignore the top one and go to the bottom one
mark the text that you entered since you began that edit and copy that to clipboard
use the "back" button on your browser to return to the page as it was before you began editing
edit the same section again, paste in the text from your clipboard
preview and save.
--Redrose64 (talk) 6:58 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012, (UTC+0)
That is really clear and most helpful, especially the part about the two windows.
I shall copy this to my own page for ease of reference. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)
7:33 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012, (UTC+0)
Creating that link
Hello Vadmium,
Thank you for your considerable help last night. Your "Oops, how did that get there?" edit summary was referring to a problem that I had earlier when I hit an "edit conflict" and did not understand how I was supposed to "merge". I have not found the answer on the Help page.
I wondered if you had any advice.
I was very impressed with how you were able to link me directly to my example edit page within The Sopranos revision history and I wanted to know the meaning of [{{fullurl:The... (obviously the rest makes complete sense.)
My “oops” thing was entirely my fault; no conflict with anyone else. As I was writing my second response, I opened The Sopranos in a new tab, and I must have selected the URL and pasted it with the middle mouse button without realising (too easy to do with a Linux computer).
A real edit conflict is when you take one version of a page and change it, but in the meantime someone else has also changed it. It’s rather annoying, but you have to review what the other change is, and redo your changes on top of it if they are still relevant. Main point that I can remember when I last got an edit conflict is that there are actually two edit boxes presented and your changes are still in one of them, so it might be a good idea to copy them somewhere safe. Sometimes if you use the section editing instead of editing the whole page I think you can avoid conflicts with edits to different sections.
The Help:fullurl page might be useful to you, but it’s a bit technical. Basically you write the name of a wiki page and it generates the rest of the URL or address including en.wikipedia.org or whatever. I only used it because I probably know more than is healthy to know about the Media Wiki software that is used on Wikipedia :). For most people it’s probably simpler to just load up the special page that shows the diff or whatever, copy the URL, and then paste it directly into the conversation, which pretty much has the same effect. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Once again, I am indebted to you. You explain matters so clearly and make what would seem to me initially as incomprehensible, perfectly understandable. I am enjoying learning so much about "computing" since I started on Wikipedia last autumn. I find it therapeutic for "the old brain"... shall be hitting 70 in April.
Thank you. That is a big improvement. I was misreading "the word to be used" as one phrase and quite missing the point of the sentence. I made a further tweak as I still found it easy to fall into that mistake. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen your tweak and agree that it is now perfectly understandable.
Below is a section that I have copied from my user page.
I have "cheated" a little, in that I have taken the photograph from the Wikipedia Land Rover Series article, but, apart from the fact that mine has the old-style (grey metal symbols on black metal) numberplates, and does not have those rather modern-looking overtaking mirrors on the doors, one would swear that it is an image of mine.
After making the two MGB userboxes for me earlier this month, you very kindly offered to help me again. I would be thrilled if you were to make one indicating that same message as shown on the MGB GT.
Obviously, I imagine you may wish to use a different image, should you know of a more suitable one.
Image:1963.landrover.s2a.arp.jpg
My 1961Land Rover Series IIA 2.25 litre 4 cylinders OHV petrol engine Short wheel-base (88") Purchased in 1990. Shown here with its pickup type removable cab. Also own the original removable "full tilt" top with sliding side-windows, in the original colour, antelope.
Perfect! Thank you very much. I had not thought that you would have done it today, and, what's more, three hours ago. I am very pleased. With best wishes,
I have removed the general help request from the User talk:Accusativen hos Olsson. To reach another editor, simply post a comment on their talk page. The {{helpme}} template flags the entire community to your question. If you need help or assistance, please feel free to contact me directly. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice... I am still learning... and need all the help that is offered to me. I shall leave the user a message now.
You are up late... it's three o' clock in the morning where you are. Eleven o'clock here.
Yes, I have the world's worst sleeping disorder, so nothing is normal about me. LOL That said, I think I'm heading to bed. Seriously though, don't hesitate to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm up again. Couldn't sleep. The "tl" stands for "template". Templates are presented between brackets. If we don't place the "tl" separated by a pipe, then the template will actually show up in its entirety, rather than simply showing up as a link. It's a basic cheat code. At least that's what I call it. A "cheat code". Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really are Sleepless in Seatle. Thank you again for the explanation, and I hope your computer lets you rest! I know what you mean regarding the difficulty in resisting the urge to carry out just one more task... All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section retitled Cwm Rhondda
Bread of heaven
I enjoyed your collection of flags at the top of this page.
I know (the English version of) the hymn that includes the line "bread of heaven". In fact, it is right up at the top of my favorites. But please tell me what is the specific connection between Welsh rugby and "bread of heaven".
Cwm Rhondda is a very well known Welsh hymn tune. First performed in 1907. Cwm Rhondda translates as "the Rondda Valley" in English, and more often than not, sung to the words: Guide me, O thou great Redeemer. Wales rugby union supporters adopted it years ago, although the reason is not understood, apart from the fact that it is an inspiring song which everyone knew (Sundays in chapel) and could keep repeating, and repeating... I think it splendid.
It was sung at the funerals of both Princess Diana and the Queen Mother, and at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.
It is indeed splendid, both tune and words. The version I learned (in the United Church of Canada) began Guide me, O thou great Jehovah.
The part of the story I did not know was its adoption by the Rugby union. A great anthem, known to everyone in Wales. I guess it is a natural. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth, I think I've confused you into thinking I know something about Wales ... I'm just supporting MonmouthpediA for Wikimedia UK. I can't claim any expertise - Suggest you ask your question on the talk page of Monmouthpedia or Wikiproject Wales. Do come back at me if Ive misunderstood. Victuallers (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...or here (where many interested editors can read it), or on the article talk page. Adding the same request to lots of editors' talk pages is a bit ... unconventional? Personally, the fact that I happen to live in Wales doesn't make me an expert on - or especially interested in - Welsh hymns. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The singing of Hymns at rugby matches in Wales is almost as old as the sport in Wales itself. One of the best documented matches in 'early' rugby history is the 1905 classic between Wales and New Zealand. Before the match the crowds were entertained by a brass band, I'm assuming military as they played marches. Before kick off the crowds sung 'Boys of the Old Brigade', 'Ton-y-botel' and 'Lead Kindly Light'. The game is best remembered though for the first ever singing of a national anthem before a sporting event when the crowd sung 'Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau' along with Teddy Morgan. As early as the 1970s there was a public bemoaning of the hymn singing traditions at national matches, replaced with the songs of Max Boyce and howls of 'Waaay-uls'. Personally I think that the song was adopted along with many others, but being in English, memorable and catchy, it stuck. If you want a reference that acknowledges it is seen as a Welsh rugby anthem you could use this here. Otherwise I will think you will find it difficult to find a verifiable reference to why Cwm Rhondda has been embraced. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leeks for sale: Are you ready for the Six Nations!
Did some work on the article but don't know much about the rugby connection. I think it's just coincidental - a particularly rousing song suitable for crowd participation. Deb (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words are by William Williams, Pantycelyn 1717-1791 originally as "Arglwydd Arwain Trwy'r Anialwch" it was translated from the Welsh by Peter Williams 1723 - 1796. The tune is by John Hughes, 1873-1932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynapHuw (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harper Lee used the mockingbird to symbolize innocence in the novel.
Thank you for your good advice given in the edit summary when you were reverting my edit in the article on the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird earlier this morning.
In nearly six years and 26,000 edits I've made to Wikipedia, you are the first editor to thank me for anything related to reverting their edit. I don't quite know what to say, other than you have a superhuman Grace--which shows even in this small instance. Have a fabulous day and enjoy Wales. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "inspiration" may be a bit over the top. I know a handful of Wikipedians who no doubt spewed their beverages on their monitors reading that I may be inspirational. Happy editing nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No spewed bevs here. Moni both needs and deserves some good ole-fashioned butt-kissing from time to time. Come to think of it, so do I. ;) Yes, Monidear, you are inspirational, and people whose opinion mean anything at all agree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Moni and Christine, consider your butts officially kissed, ole-fashionedly. And, what the hell, you too Gareth! I would have used a wiki-love thingy to do this, but couldn't find a decent image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty of relevant illustrations on Commons... although you may need to have your eyeballs bleached after you spend some time looking around for them. MastCellTalk22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of the comment was what I intended. Directly under yours, not indented after yours. I wasn't necessarily responding to you. Although it doesn't really matter much anyway. So...I'm going to go find five more minutes to add to my life to replace the ones I just spent on this. No worries. Carry on. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to understand. Still a "new boy", still so much to learn. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain. Yet another Wikipedia technique that I realise, now, I had noticed before today, but had not appreciated had any significance. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response... you were up late like me. I had been celebrating Wales beating the old enemy and winning the Triple Crown. Let's hope Scotland has success today in Murrayfield.
I wonder if I could ask you to make me a somewhat similar map, but featuring South Wales/the traditional county of Monmouthshire/Castleton Castleton is a small village/hamlet midway between Cardiff and Newport. My User page lead would explain my interest. Would it be too much trouble? Only do it if it isn't. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that shouldn't be too much trouble at all and I'm more than happy to do it. There are a few things I'd like to clarify though:
When you say a similar map, do you mean a map showing South Wales/the traditional county of Monmouthshire/Castleton within the UK?
What do you mean by South Wales (the Wikipedia article gives various definitions - which do you mean)?
Do you want one map or three (i.e. all of those things together or one for each of them)?
Partly "Yes" to that question, but, comparing it with your Wales map, Europe would be replaced by South Wales as the largest, background map, so that in turn Monmouthshire would be replacing the British Isles as the middle map, which would then be enlarged to form the third map, highlighting Castleton, Newport.
To give you enough room, I suggest it might be best to not take South Wales too literally, but to draw a line West-East through Wrexham or thereabouts and regard all Wales south of that line as your largest map.
Whilst editing, I have noticed that in some articles the dates are formatted as follows: ... on_26_Aprilampersandnbsp;1997_ at... which produces this: on 26 April 1997 at... What is the advantage? Can somebody help me please? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-breaking space. It tells the browser to avoid laying out the text like this...
...with the month on one line and the year on the next. The theory is that this could make the text harder to read, but I haven't seen many dates formatted with non-breaking spaces. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John of Reading for your prompt and succinct reply. I have been searching Wikipedia for an explanation for what seems like hours. I suppose you would only use the non-breaking space after noticing its need on Show Preview before saving your edit. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Grand Slam, the Triple Crown winners will not necessarily be the tournament winners, since France or Italy–or even another of the home nations– could outperform them on points-difference within the Six Nations Championship. This first occurred in the 1977 Five Nations Championship, when Wales won the Triple Crown by defeating the other three British Isles teams, while France won the Championship by completing the Grand Slam over all four of the British Isles teams. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 9:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily on points-difference even, it could be outright, couldnt it? If England took the Triple Crown but lost to both France and Italy, while Wales won all their matches except the one against England, then Wales would be above England in the table regardless of points-difference.--Victor Yus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, results of matches will always take precedence over numbers of points won or leaked in determining the Championship winner.
I'm of mixed ancestry so I can take my pick, but I admit I always find a Welsh victory particularly rousing. Perhaps because the brilliant performances of G. Edwards & co. are among my earliest sporting memories... Victor Yus (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been busy this morning on The Triple Crown article. Well done! It is altogether a much better article now. Been good working together on this.
Hi, saw the entry, the delete and the revert.
I don't think it's vandalism - he should have explained but in my opinion he has a point.
There's already an article on the triple crown that includes the fact that Wales have won it this year. I don't see the value in adding the 2012 winner here - the article is about the 6 nations.Regards Ytic nam (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ytic nam (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "the current holder of the Triple Crown". Why state the 2012 winners and not the 2011, 2010 etc. winners? Just a thought, but I think it makes it more encyclopedic and less "newsy".Ytic nam (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was... in spite of the ref.! I've been watching [scrum v], courtesy of BBC i-player via cable (it is not available live here) and listening to the panel agreeing with what I had thought during the match: he was determined to penalise the attacking team – only one – Wales, whenever possible. I still enjoyed it enormously. Saturday will be great against France. It was kind of you to make contact. Diolch yn fawr, Deb. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at OwenBlacker's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, You have requested a map for the A470 article today on the Discussion page. Any ideas how such a long route may be shown, other than on a map of pretty well the whole of Wales? Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was broadly thinking of a map of Wales with the route marked on it. A north–south route is never going to have a map that's too tall for an infobox, unless it were running the length of a continent :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk)17:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope the money will be put to good effect... any indication of what is planned? The A470 is one of those roads that cry out to be driven from start to finish. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the technology section:
Will extend mobile coverage to 60,000 rural homes and along at least 10 key roads by 2015, including the A2 and A29 in Northern Ireland, the A57, A143, A169, A352, A360 and A591 in England, the A82(T) in Scotland and the A470(T) in Wales, subject to planning permission, using the £150m investment announced at Autumn Statement 2011. — Budget 2012: Technology section from Treasury Budget Report, BBC News Online, 21 March 2012
So not road-specific, but good news nonetheless. I've never been along the road, but the route (from what I can gather without a map ;o) sounds stunning. I'll have to find someone to drive me along it sometime :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk)09:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got the hint about the missing map... see what we can come up with!
I can indeed, although I'm not sure where I'll get the data from for it (I'm sure I can find something… if all else fails there's always Google maps). Oh, and don't think I've forgotten about the Castleton map, I just haven't had a lot of time to do it (it's quite an intricate map and I need good historical maps to work off to get it right, which complicates the process). Honestly though, unless a relief map already exists a blank or political map would be far easier than a relief - vector graphics don't lend themselves particularly well to that sort of thing. Is there any particular reason for it being a relief? Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(talk)01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'd do fine, although Wales location map.svg would probably be more suitable; the road will be drawn in green (being an A road), and green-on-green isn't exactly ideal (plus the borders etc on this one are finer, so are less distracting). Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(talk)14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially difficult no; maybe took about 5-10 minutes. Since the map was already there, is was basically just a case of drawing the line on top of it to represent the road. Since it is a road, there's no worrying about it joining properly with adjacent shapes (as is the case with country outlines etc), so as long as one is familiar with the software it's actually easier than it would have been to do it free-hand. Anyway, glad to be of service . Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(talk)19:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, the asterisks are just for emphasis. It's some old Internet thing I picked up from some place or other. Think of it as equivalent to bolding or italics; in fact, I think certain IRC clients actually bold anything so enclosed by asterisks. And no worries, I didn't think you were criticizing me. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange rugby edits
Hi! Take a look at what this person's been doing to some of the Five Nations articles. Is he making corrections, or is he just randomly messing with the figures? I left a note on his talk page, but as it's just an IP address, I don't expect much response. If he's messing, we ought to revert the changes.--Victor Yus (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is irregular behaviour and without any edit summaries, and no response to your posting, I think he is messing with the statistics. Even reverting so many is a time-consuming job. I checked on the anon's location – it is Sheffield. I shall leave him a note too. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, I see that he has left (at 16:47 hrs) an unsigned comment. I have just posted this on his page:
Before saving your edit to any article, please provide an edit summary. So far you have not done so on any edit. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism. It is also helpful to other users reading the edit history of the page. In view of that, together with your unsigned posting above, you are advised that your edits are regarded as vandalism and will be reverted. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He says he's editing according to a source, so we should look into it to see which set of results is correct. I'll try to take a look when I get time. Or maybe we should ask other rugby project members to consider - someone must have a reliable list of results at their fingertips, I'd have thought.--Victor Yus (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the source at http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/6nations.htm contradicts itself; for example, for 1947, it lists England and Wales as the champions in the list of champions by year, but in the league table for 1947 (much further down the page) it puts Ireland top. I'd tend to believe the first list, though, as it agrees with the individual match results as listed in the Wikipedia article, which I assume someone got from some other reliable source. --Victor Yus (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at his source too. I always feel mistrustful when the editor is an anon. He stopped after your posting and hasn't returned today. Shall we carry out reversions or leave it a day or two? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think his edits should be reverted. He was no doubt acting in good faith, but as far as we can tell his source is not reliable.--Victor Yus (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YAll reverted!Do you think: (a) he had finished when you spotted him? (b) you interrupted him, and may return, different IP? (c) being an anon, he has even looked at his talk page since his one reply to you? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! My guess would be he's not out to make trouble, he was just misled by the tables in the source, and probably won't be carrying on, but let's keep an eye out.--Victor Yus (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Griffith-Jones. Just for context, I work at the Wikimedia Foundation, but I've been an English Wikipedian for much longer. The reason I wanted to make sure your edits were recognized with a barnstar is because we recently started looking at a list of people who'd made their 1,000th edit to articles, and your name was at the top of the list this week (April 5th, UTC time to be exact). Thanks again for contributing to the encyclopedia. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a splendid way to begin Good Friday!
I am delighted with your recognition of my editing Wikipedia over the past seven months.
I believe the {{nowrap}} template might be better in this case since the non-breaking space would require a space between the parts of her last name, which is what's wrapping onto a new line. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The nowrap template should work, but the instructions are unclear on one point: would I be able to put the template at the beginning of the page and include a list of names there, or would each name require its own template. Keep in mind that the names are already nested within table template, and may (later) be nested within a collapse template. In other words, where would I use the template? Actually, the "non-breaking space" sounds intriguing, is that a character that looks like a space, but acts like a regular character? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The non-breaking space is normally used when a date... 7 April 2012 ... is prevented from splitting into two lines of text. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP.
<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |title=Wife of Kony video director filmed running naked through streets says he was suffering from 'reactive psychosis' due to stress and exhaustion|publisher=Daily Mail|date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>
Help:URL if you're having trouble with the URL itself ...
Thanks for visiting the Teahouse!
Hi! Gareth Griffith-Jones,
thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more hereSarah (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Auto Wiki Browser user permission granted April 12, 2012
Thank you for the info' given just now re- the discussion going on.
After a stormy introduction to each other, I would like to believe that we may now be friends. How about you? Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem - I absolutely have no problem with becoming friends here on Wikipedia! After all, I saw in your edit history that you've worked on the James Rollins articles and hey, anyone who is a fan of Rollins has got to have some pretty good taste! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Seen the result on the Charles Brokaw redirect. It was what you wanted, wasn't it? Knew we had some things in common. I have read all the Sigma Force novels in chronological order and looking forward to the next. Devil Colony did not get published here till early 2012. Also read more than half of the "stand- alone" books, eespecially liked Amazonia and Ice Hunt. How about you? Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that Amazonia is one of my favorites as well! There's just something about ruins in the middle of a jungle that's so exciting! I'm also a big fan of Scott Sigler (most of his books are free in their podcast formats), Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child, and Andy McDermott. I'm pretty much of the persuasion that as long as a book contains historical mysteries and people shooting at each other, I'm probably going to like it. XD Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was glad to receive your list of authors the other day. Always good to have some recommendations. Here's one for you that I have just discovered. I am currently reading the 2010 novel, THE DEATH INSTINCT by JED RUBENFELD. Very good style, excellent English, gripping story. I shall certainly try to get hold of his first novel. He is an American lawyer/author and lives in New Haven, Connecticut. This is his second book. His first, called "The Interpretation of Murder" held the number 1 slot in the Sunday Times chart for seven weeks. They are published here in the UK by HEADLINE REVIEW, which is an Hatchette UK Company. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still being made to feel very much the new boy, which actually I quite like – having recently entered my eighth decade – I wondered if you would like some feedback. STiki is the second vandalism tool I have employed (the first being Twinkle) Then I successfully applied for Rollback, so tried Huggle. Finally, used igloo.
Having returned to your product, I would say that it is the best of the bunch. I particularly like the easy interaction between STiki and the article/the editor/the history and of course, Twinkle.
This brings me to my first question: if I revert using Twinkle on the article page, does this action get recorded in the STiki records?
Secondly, on your Leaderboard page, you, for example, show STiki as your 'favourite queue', whereas I am listed as preferring Cluebot-NG – why the difference, and how is it selected?
Thirdly, I was allowed to use STiki before Rollback authorisation was granted. Why?
First, I assume you find an edit using STiki, and then use a hyperlink to open the edit/diff in your web browser. It is from here that you use Twinkle to undo the tool. When you return to the STiki window, that same edit is still being displayed, so the only way to get the next one is to use a classification button. This classification will be recorded for leaderboard purposes (i.e., if you press "vandalism" you will be credited for it -- and you won't revert the edit you just made using Twinkle).
Second, you will notice there is a "queue" menu in the STiki tool where the queue can be selected. These are behind the scenes algorithms that determine what edits are displayed to users first (based on vandalism probability). There are all types of ways to calculate this with varying accuracy. Right now, it seems like the "CBNG" queue has the greatest chance of showing you an instance of vandalism. CBNG is a third-party algorithm. I wrote and developed the "STiki" approach, so that is why I have some preference for it. Because all the approaches are different, they may find vandalism another does not. If you are using the CBNG queue and find your vandalism hit-rate slowing down during a long session, it may be worthwhile to switch queues and see if this helps things.
Third, rollback is not required to use STiki. There is some discussion whether we should make it a requirement -- but given the fact we have had very little abuse using the tool, we're inviting everyone to the party. If you are curious why you were able to do "rollbacks" in STiki when you didn't have the "rollback" permission, this is because STiki implements something called "software rollback" for those who don't have the native right. In this case, STiki does a lot of work to determine "what would a rollback do?" and then makes an edit to the same effect. This is far less efficient than native rollback, but gets the job done!
Brilliant ... thank you very much for leading me to it. The illustrations are rib-crackingly funny, and I believe you may have used some, haven't you? I did recognise two or three. I am sure there is a considerable amount of fun to be had, although I still remember your angry "Mrs."
For your first Vandal Fighting experience with STiki, keep it cool and be careful, you have cleaned some Vandalism, thanks and keep contributing, cheers ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Just been reading the Lassi article. It sounds delicious! Thank you for all your encouragement, good humour and patience dealing with an "old boy"! All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great way to visualize her turning in both direction at once – just put a letter on the leg on the floor!
The illusion derives from the lack of visual cues for depth. For instance, as the dancer's arms move from viewer's left to right, it is possible to view her arms passing between her body and the viewer (that is, in the foreground of the picture, in which case she would be circling counter-clockwise on her right foot) and it is also possible to view her arms as passing behind the dancer's body (that is, in the background of the picture, in which case she is seen circling clockwise on her left foot).
When she is facing to the left or to the right, her breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing, although there is ambiguity in which leg is which. However, as she moves away from facing to the left (or from facing to the right), the dancer can be seen (by different viewers, not by a single individual) facing in either of two directions. At first, these two directions are fairly close to each other (both left, say, but one facing slightly forward, the other facing slightly backward) but they become further and further away from each other until we reach a position where her ponytail and breasts are in line with the viewer (so that neither her breasts nor her ponytail are seen so readily). In this position, she could be facing either away from the viewer or towards the viewer, so that the two positions, two different viewers could see, are 180 degrees apart. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)
One interesting thing about this illusion is the shadow of a foot passing right-to-left at the very bottom of the frame. Based on the shadow's movement, it can only be coming from the dancer's right foot. Therefore, based on this visual clue only, the dancer must be spinning on her left foot. Strangely though, even with this in mind, it is still possible to visualize the dancer spinning the opposite way, on her right foot, admittedly aided by the addition of the "R" in this case. Just thought I'd point this out. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is very observant of you. You are of course, correct, especially in the latter part. Thank you for that. Just as a point of interest – I am curious, and pleased – how did you come to find my talk page? Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once one notices the small foot shadow, either conciously or subconciously, your mind interprets a light source originating from behind the dancer. This also firmly establishes in your brain that the larger shadow of the other leg is also being caused by the same light source. This is why it is very difficult for some people to see the dancer rotating the other direction, if there are no other clues (although it is still possible). The inclusion of the letters, the R in the lower frame, and the way it disappears as if being eclipsed by a leg, is a very strong visual clue which overrides the brains interpretation of the light source.
In a recent edit – to the page, The Godfather – you changed one or more words from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Terence7 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Terence7,
Point taken, understood, and accepted... to be frank, I appreciate your advice and promise to adhere to the above criteria. As a Welshman who loves well-written and well-spoken English, I have to confess to preferring British English spelling. But, having said that, I read many novels by U.S. authors and achieve enormous enjoyment from the majority that I choose.
I know nothing about you, and would like a brief note confirming that there are no bad feelings. With kind regards,
No bad feelings at all. Thanks for your note. As you might guess this is a recurring issue on Wikipedia. (The message I posted was actually just a standard template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-lang )
Thank you for that. I'm still a new boy, and frankly, at the age I am, (70 next Spring) I need all the help I can get with the formatting. With best wishes,
Thanks for your email. I have to admit that my eyes kinda glazed over after checking a few of the edits and I just let things go. You might post a thread at the filmproject talk page to get more eyes on the situation. You could also go to the editor and ask him/her to at least use edit summaries to explain what they are doing. The next couple of days are going to be a little hectic offwiki but I will try to take a closer look, I am glad that you also contacted RJ. He will do a good job checking things. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken your advice and posted this on both project sites:
Is there a discernable problem with his edits, or are you just objecting to him not supplying edit summaries? Ultimately edit summaries are a courtesy not a requirement, so as a Project we cannot really address that. As for the edits themselves, well if there is an actual problem with them then just revert him. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to determine whether there is a discernible problem when there are so many edits in a row, and no edit summaries to explain what he is doing. Yes, edit summaries are a courtesy, but they are especially important if one is going to make wholesale changes to an article. Gareth's intention in bringing this matter here is to get other film project editors to take a look at the edits and see if they pass muster. I think that is an appropriate step. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I had the same initial response as MarnetteD, the eyes glaze over looking at so many continuous edits. On first glance, there does not seem to be anything obviously or substantively wrong with his edits and additions. It is more a matter of his making so many edits in a row, with no edit summaries, and without discussion, that it is very difficult to follow what he is, which is precisely why edit summaries would help. A centralized discussion, either on the article talk page, or at the film project, could be helpful, especially if the editor in question is aware and takes part in said discussion. Thanks for keeping your eyes on it, Gareth. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive04:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re- your postings earlier today on the WikiProject – both subjects – excellent!
Regarding this new editor, I have followed your advice and posted a warning on his/her talk page, and opened a new section on the Godfather Discussion page.
Just wanted to stop by and say it looks like positive steps have been taken in this situation even by the new editor. So thanks again for your vigilance and for going to the community to get input. Also congrats on Wales performing the Grand Slam in the recent Six Nations tourney. Here in the US BBC America carries a few games - though I would like to see more - and it was exciting to see your team perform so well. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Thank you for your good advice, and thank you very much for your charming message this evening.
Just to let you know, Wrath X is still busy editing The Godfather – after a brief respite – and is catching you up fast. You have 178 recorded and he has 155 (not counting 48 on The Godfather II) but he/she is leaving Edit Summaries every time, thanks to you. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the facts on one aspect and thought you might. My memory was that the phone call to Sonny that lured him to the toll booth was not about a real attack on Connie, but was just a device to play on his Achilles' heel. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog...
Okay, thanks, but I'm not clear on one thing: how do you know it's a setup? I thought that they were trying to lure him out to the toll booth, but what was the actual plan? Did Carlo beat her for the purpose of getting him to come to her aid? That seems like a dubious plan. Thanks. (And feel free to answer here -- I monitor your talk page changes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How else would they have known? Okay, that is evidence they were listening in on a phone call. Or were told by Carlo that Connie called him (if he knew). So yes that is the key question. Or, what did Carlo do that betrayed Sonny? Same question in a different form. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the novel here, but a long time since I read it. See if that helps. Shall do that this morning. I agree with your analysis, and, in my opinion, was probably explained in the filming, but left on the editor's floor. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the book is no help at all: Carlo does not leave their home. Is very drunk and sleeps. Then, after a few hours, Connie phones her parent's home intending to speak to Hagan or her mother, not wanting to speak to Santino. Her mother answers, but Sonny takes the phone from her.
So, the "only possible explanation" of how Barzini's men were already waiting at the toll booth – that he awoke and heard his wife's telephone call, is null and void. They did not have enough time to arrange the ambush. Furthermore, the war of the Five Families is regarded to be over at this point, so Sonny and Hagan were not anticipating a setup. Yet at the end of the novel, Michael tricks Carlo into telling him that he did inform Barzini ... over to you ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Is this "narrative art"? Notice they separate the revelation that Carlo betrayed Sonny from the events. So at the moment I write it off to a little plot hole that they couldn't figure out how to close. Still, I'm thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to mention that, since you love watching the film so much, I believe you would enjoy Coppola's commentary, especially to the first film. He mentions so many interesting things about production. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I do. My three are the 25th Anniversary Editions the wide-screen versions, on good old VHS video tapes. The commentaries are great.
What a lovely surprise. Thank you so much! I am delighted.
We have had a wet and windy day here, and just watched the great James Stewart in the 1946 "It's a wonderful life". Then came up to check My watchlist to find your award and ... it really is a wonderful life!
I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this Welshman has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section, dealing entirely with a third-party book and its contents, appears in all three film articles, and appears to be, for lack of a better term, bookspam. Im sure there have been other books on the subject, and none of these deserve a full section treatment in these articles. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, [[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo], and this subject has already been broached before. Now, with additional support, I shall remove the section from all three articles and we can wait for a reaction.
Oh, I have just worked it out ... so it was an edit summary ... I don't know why either of you couldn't/wouldn't tell me that. Remember! The article is what matters, and it will continue to be a work in progress. You have done a sterling job, and deserve a big thank you. I am anxious that this does not get acrimonious ... there is far too much of that on Wikipedia. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
Where's all the Godfather stuff gone? By the way my email had to be updated to so you better send what you had to send again, sorry! JTBX (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be alarmed! It is all still on my page – up near the top – next to earlier Godfather material. Been deleting 'stuff' I don't want. Can't be bothered with archiving – who would bother to trawl through archives? Wanted to speed up access to my page. I had reached 324,759 bytes on April 19. Still more to discard, but def. no Godfather or Sopranos. Read El Dude's page earlier this evening (he helped me out earlier this year on The Sopranos, so he's on My Watchlist) Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really use e-mail for communication, I'm afraid, unless it's business/organisation related, so I don't how that system works on here. But yes, I am going through to administrator resolution now. I have a copy of the draft saved in Word which I edit offline in case it's ever lost. JTBX (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand that. It can be useful though if you want say something sensitive and not be seen by any person on Wikipedia. Don't be alarmed! – everything is still there in the history. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Are you & Gareth really going to put up with more of User:RC's bullshit? He acts like he owns these film articles and edit wars to get his way. There is no exception in WP:3RR for consensus, remember that. I'm done trying to reason with him. If/when you file a report against him, please let me know so I can weigh in, to confirm his issues of WP:TE and WP:OWN. El duderino(abides)05:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Will liaise with JTBX, and get back to you. I don't know if you remember,but you came to my aid earlier this year regarding the info'box on The Sopranos for which I am grateful. Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright guys, going to do it now, sorry for the late response. Going to just read through the policies now and go to resolution. JTBX (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I see that JTBX has undertaken an effort to slander me behind my back. Sorry to drag you into it. The facts are that I'm working with both him and El Duderino and they don't accept that we have to meet halfway on some things. As you know, Gareth, I'm trying to improve the article. Although in the case of The Godfather I didn't accept all of JTBX's edits, I incorporated some and suggested areas where I agreed with him that we could make some improvements. That is normal editing. Not all proposals are accepted and editors have to communicate on these matters. Both of them seem to be saying that it's all or nothing. El Duderino's position is untenable. JTBX has good ideas and I have said so. So, again, thanks for your fine attitude and I'm sorry if you feel like you're in the middle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. All along I have been anxious to avoid anything approaching an edit war and the intervention of others. I go back to the beginning of the month and the action I took then to prevent a wholesale takeover by Wrath X. Together, you Ring, and I, rescued the article, and soon after that, JTBX became involved, and we three worked really well together, as a team, for quite some time.
As I see it,
the breakdown in cooperation between the two of you began when the idea of another draft of the plot summary was aired. Because I could not find the origin of this alternative approach, this confused me as you both now know. I know now that it was an edit summary made by Ring and addressed to JTBX, and not posted on the discussion page of The Godfather.
we should continue to merge the two editions and make an attempt to revitalise the feeling of a group effort that was present until recently.
when that is achieved, I should like to think that we three can move on and edit II and III together.
Yes, I agree. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is already agreement on some areas that deserve improvement on the plot summary. And I have incorporated as much of JTBX's suggestions, as well. To me, this is normal give and take. I will remain optimistic, and thank you again for your time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, he is just playing semantics again. Look through his entire history on his talk, one revert warning from an adminstrator after another. He says this but the fact is I incorporated the edits he wanted, such as "riddled with machine gun fire" etc, not the other way around. He just reverts. He will probably add some things from my plot now to appear as if to get along. Nonsense. JTBX (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please believe me when I say that it is better to try to cooperate and discuss than it is to war with one another. Now that the air has been cleared, and everyone is talking, we will continue to discuss rather than edit and revert. We are a good team. We are passionate. That is good for the article, and the next, and the next. It is the only way. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the {tb} alerts, Gareth. But I'm through trying to discuss the issues with RC. He's a stubborn mule and only seems interested in getting his way and arguing about it. As soon as I attempted a compromise at No Country, (see my post which starts with "Fine..") he accuses me of changing the argument, terms, 'subject' whatever. His replies to me and others there are filled with condescension and I want no more part of it. El duderino(abides)21:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, Dude, there was already a compromise in place between me and Star. Not that you have to accept it, of course, but don't accuse me of not wanting to compromise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestion for The Godfather dispute?
@ EdJohnstonI had hoped we would not be in this position. I have tried to be both mediator and counsellor. I do not require "full protection" – both users are responsible editors whose only fault, if they have one (and I do not believe it a fault) is passion. I have only been involved with editing Wikipedia seriously since last September and my looking up the RfC page for the first time fills me with dread that this is just going to escalate into far too much.
Believe it or not – and this is also addressed to JTBX and Ring Cinema – I continue to expect this episode to be resolved in the manner I describe above, and we will work together in the future. That is unlikely if any one party is intransigent.
Therefore, I would recommend a voluntary absence of 14 days, to cool down, and I will hold the fort as caretaker and maybe do a little merging where I feel it will not provoke either editor when they return. They should leave the article and talk page alone, out of sight, in my opinion.
Well, Gareth, my view is that it's unfair to me to pretend I'm guilty of anything just because JT filed a complaint and accused me of bad faith. How does he climb down from that in a way that allows him to work with me? If he doesn't want to collaborate with other editors that is his decision but it would be a mistake to ignore that. For that reason, I think it would be more fruitful to restrict ourselves to the Talk page until we agree mutually to return to editing the article page. Do you think that has any merit? -- Ring Cinema (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Gareth, please Gareth, please, someone has figured out what I really am like Look you can keep doing this with a strop to look innocent, but the fact is, from the start of you registering on Wikipedia over 3 years ago, you have gotten into conflict over conflict about how you deal with others on Wikipedia, in relation to films especially, insulting adminstrators, and have been blocked multiple times. Somehow, you keep comign back. Seriously it is not hard, just take a look through his entire talk history. End of story, as he has dealt with me in the same way. I have already listened to you, which is why I had a draft on the talk page in the first place, to resolve issues, but you do not accept it. Simple. Stop this nonsense. JTBX (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. I would even go further to say that at the moment I see no point in continuing discussion with him, which is why I encouraged JBTX to pursue the DR himself after he informed me of his similar argument. I am now on a self-imposed voluntary interaction-ban, of sorts. Meaning: I do not intend to address him directly anymore. And if he is reading this, I would like for him to do the same. I have no intention of rehashing what happened at the relevant talkpage thread at No Country for Old Men (film) which is what he is trying to do -- meanwhile, re-framing it to fit his own distorted purview, as JBTX alludes to above.
@Gareth, I can appreciate your positive tone and attempts to mediate, but I disagree with your assessment above that the air has been cleared. User:RC has not acknowledged his part in the escalation of these two disputes. I.e, he seems to be saying he's done nothing wrong. For example, apparently he still thinks he reached a compromise with the other editor (StarofAmman) at No Country -- when, as I see it, Star simply kept changing the content until RC stopped reverting -- all the while neither of them adding to the talkpage. That's not compromise. El duderino(abides)08:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, she made a change I accepted. Then I went to her talk page and told her it was fine by me. That is what a compromise looks like: someone makes a proposal that the other side agrees is good enough. So, yeah, you have confirmed that Star and I made our compromise. I'm not sure why you don't recognize it when you are looking at it, but okay. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have ever been this honest. "She made a change I accepted. Then I went to her talk page and told her it was fine by me." WP:OWN. --JTBX (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ EdJohnston Hi, you left a comment on El duderino's page stating that we should try RfC? how does this work, and if you could advise, what is the best procedure to file a complaint that is very long, complex and detailed? If discussion and so on has already been tried and if the user is a known edit warrior as well in conflict with other users is RfC on a user ideal? Thank you. JTBX (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to simplify your request. If you make an RfC about 20 things nobody may bother to respond. If you actually are hoping to find consensus it doesn't help to come to my page and badmouth the other editor. You might consider making a new draft of the article in your user space and then ask for comments. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At 04:39, April 25 2012 (UTC) Admin EdJohnston protected The Godfather: Edit warring / Content dispute: WP:AN3#User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected). It expires 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston Thank you for your time spent on this matter. Not what I was hoping for, but, on reflection, it is a sound choice of action. It will at least appear to be a birthday present to me when editing may be resumed on the twentyeighth.
@ Ring Cinema Yes! Why don't we do that (see above: 03:31 hrs. today!) – more or less what I was intending .
@ JTBX Your youthful enthusiasm is infectious. I think we enjoy working alongside each other. This will get better, trust me!
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I posted there and I'll be watching your page -- no need to put tags here when there's a new response. And just fyi, I may not post there again because I really don't want to interact directly with RC. El duderino(abides)08:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, you are a well established and excellent editor to work with, and of course I would love to continue working on the sequels and so on, as well as any future projects, but you have to understand as duderino has pointed out, there is no point talking to RC anymore. If you want try something then post the draft we worked on and improve it, into the article. Lets see what he does then. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ JTBX Thank you and, “Yes”, we will continue. I am sad at how it has turned out; even I am affected by the admin's action, in that nobody has access to the article. Absurd! We three must use the talk page more from now on. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)
I've just seen that the article is now protected because of the dispute. As a result I may leave a message on the Godfather talk page, though I have already stated what I have wished and edited the draft there with your help. JTBX (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, since you, RC and I are the only ones editing the article, then I would like to ask your actual opinion on the matter. Do you think our draft should replace the one in the article, and have us work from there? Without your agreement I will have to solely report RC, but all of that can be avoided provided you help this consensus. As a result both of us can notify EdJohnston, who will then allow it to be placed in the article and remove protection. At least that is the way I see it after speaking with EJ. JTBX (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright here is what I am going to do:
In this cool off period until the article is unprotected, I will reason out on the talk page of the article, why I think the plot should be included, as I have began to do so. I suggest you go there and see, as well as improving it. I request for your help Gareth, if possible, editing the draft and responding. Ring Cinema does not appear to have any recent editing history on the subsequent Godfather films so I don't expect a conflict there. I have already begun cutting the plot on II in a saved draft offline and will paste it into the talk page of Part II first, and request your help with it. I did not reveal this until now because I know Ring-Cinema would have made his move there and he hasn't yet, but if he does... know that it was because I just stated this and he probably wishes to spur another conflict. Okay? I will then return to Godfather Part I, to see if issues have ironed out. If conflict arises again without an actual provided good reason as before I will file RfC on the film. If I see it as more serious, I will file an RfC on the user with help from El duderino and others who may have faced similar issues. --JTBX (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ JTBX I read your last night's posting a couple of hours ago. Been walking my dog round the lakes ... this is when I do my best thinking. Will get back to you later this morning. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on the Godfather talk page ... well done! ... a lot of conscientious effort and well worth reading. I am still debating in my mind how to approach our return to the article. Much depends upon your relationship with Ring. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming serious
Have you seen "No Country" today? This is becoming serious. Also his attempt to involve MarnetteD | Talk I think he probably got the idea of doing that from my talk page ... see this I've been following The Godfather talk with dismay.
Re- his plot draft:
Having edited the first paragraph yesterday, I have just had a go at the second. It now reads thus:
Drug baron Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo (Al Lettieri), backed by the Tattaglia family, asks Vito for investment and protection through his political connections, but Vito declines and voices his disapproval of drug dealers. His enforcer, Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) is killed when sent to spy on them. Sollozzo attempts to assassinate Vito. His eldest son, Sonny (James Caan) takes command. Sollozzo kidnaps Hagen, suggesting he should persuade Sonny to accept his deal. Whilst the Corleone family discuss the situation, they receive a fish in Brasi's vest confirming he sleeps with the fishes.
Not necessary. I already edited the second paragraph in the article. The chance that he's going to be anything but a nuisance is about equal to zero. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JT can decide to be productive, or he can decide to be destructive. For The Godfather, we're fine. We'll proceed on the basis of unanimity. I don't want you to be in the middle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And apparantly I do not know what Consensus means. From the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Which is what I have been trying to do.
No Country for Old Men I am not disrupting the article, only improving it. I did not use personal attacks, that is simply a falsfication. I am not violating any consensus, there is simply one on the plot which mentioned reducing detail and improving it, and which is what I am doing. I see it needs to be improved more and trying to be productive, but you have continually reverted my edits. Please stop. If you have suggestions, take them to the talk page. --JTBX (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)The fact that you took my edits to No Country as a disruption illustrates my point perfectly. You took it as another attack, when I was simply editing to improve, because you do not own the article. "Our way of thinking" Gareth, shame on you for acting as a neutral partner but simply rolling over for Ring. I contacted MarnetteD and others as part of a wider consensus and going through The Godfather history to see who else had been editing the article, so that is wrong now? Its called Rfc too and following Wikipedia policy. WP:PLOTSUM I expected better, since you would rather leave in details such as "sleep with the fishes" over Peter Clemenza killing Paulie and so on. But which I chose to keep as part of the consensus. SO so many problems like this with the current summary. Obviously Gareth you want it to remain Ring, you and me, while trying to act like a neutral partner but really just pulling me along to Ring's side. But that will never happen. Ring has been caught for the edit warrior he is. --JTBX (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's inaccurate. I'm editing, not warring. I proposed we edit on the basis of unanimity; JTBX rejected that and violated the admin's terms. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Peter, Just clicked on the link. Didn't notice it on first look. Great. I have all their records – 45's and LP's – all bought on release in the sixties. You clever devil!
See here for earlier corgi news. And my first dog was described by our family Vet as a "Glenorchy Terrier", a possibly rather elegant shorthand for "any one of a short-haired, terrier-like small to medium sized dogs of no fixed breed endemic to the the northern suburbs of Hobart" :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edit: Yes, and look at the history. A User Chaheel made an improvement which I had already accomplished in the draft, it hurts me to see that editors are trying to improve the article, but Ring offers nothign but reverts. I also suggest you check out the talk page. JTBX (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ JTBX What ridiculous things you say about Wikipedian co-editors. Articles are never finished, they remain "works in progress", and if you have not appreciated that yet, you should go away and come back when you have grown up! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Birthday, Gareth Griffith-Jones, from User:Martinevans123 - Hope you had a nice day!
@ JTBX What a ridiculous thing to do to a Wikipedian article ... you should go away and come back when you have grown up! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)
You cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from the plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have been doing – editing it privately on Word.
Because you cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from a plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have been doing – editing it privately on Word. Be reasonable! How can other editors compare your version with the established summary? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you immediately brought this to Ring's attention? And yes, you are allowed to export and edit on Word to avoid multiple edits to an article. What are you trying to imply? In the coming reports which I am now constructing on Ring, I may also include you for your Meat-Puppetry and Twinkle abuse. Consider that not a warning, but an observation. Other editors can easily compare the summary by clicking on its previous versions, it is you and Ring that are not being reasonable. JTBX (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to be friendly after that horrible episode, I tried to reach out to you for your help in Part II having already completed getting rid of unneeded wording, but there you go, running off to Ring immediately. I think I have found out as much I as I need to know. JTBX (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he brought it to my attention because I am reasonable, easy to work with, listen to others, keep my word, and have good style. Nothing he could say about you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HA! is that a joke? is this reply [2] an example of you being reasonable or easy to work with? Judging from your interactions on various talkpages, you are clearly none of those things. Your self-delusion is astounding. 98.92.188.200 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rollbacker
Hi, this is just to let you know that I've granted you the rollback tool and responded to your email. I'm so sorry for inconveniencing you! Keilana|Parlez ici18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently found and started employing Igloo. I am very impressed and prefer it to both Huggle and STiki. I particularly appreciate "my log" at the bottom of the page. A couple of questions:
how does Igloo deal with more than one revision made consecutively?
Does it rollback to the previous editor's revision?
In the edit summary, why not Igloo – rather than (GLOO)?
Heya. Thanks for your feedback, really appreciate it. Igloo uses the built-in rollback feature - so it will rollback all consecutive edits made by the person you are reverting to the revision of the last, different editor. I chose to use GLOO because it amused me, and is arguably more memorable - advertising, and all that. Ale_Jrbtalk09:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a quick response – thank you! I was granted Rollback permission recently, so that's okay. Yes, it is more memorable, and it comes before 'h' for Huggle ... Excellent job. Any tips would be appreciated.
Clever. I thought that must have been the case, because, after a 'session', I go through the list created on my Watchlist, and look at the warnings, before removing the user's name from my list. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still being made to feel very much the new boy, which actually I quite like – having recently entered my eighth decade – I wondered if you would like some feedback. STiki is the second vandalism tool I have employed (the first being Twinkle) Then I successfully applied for Rollback, so tried Huggle. Finally, used igloo.
Having returned to your product, I would say that it is the best of the bunch. I particularly like the easy interaction between STiki and the article/the editor/the history and of course, Twinkle.
This brings me to my first question: if I revert using Twinkle on the article page, does this action get recorded in the STiki records?
Secondly, on your Leaderboard page, you, for example, show STiki as your 'favourite queue', whereas I am listed as preferring Cluebot-NG – why the difference, and how is it selected?
Thirdly, I was allowed to use STiki before Rollback authorisation was granted. Why?
First, I assume you find an edit using STiki, and then use a hyperlink to open the edit/diff in your web browser. It is from here that you use Twinkle to undo the tool. When you return to the STiki window, that same edit is still being displayed, so the only way to get the next one is to use a classification button. This classification will be recorded for leaderboard purposes (i.e., if you press "vandalism" you will be credited for it -- and you won't revert the edit you just made using Twinkle).
Second, you will notice there is a "queue" menu in the STiki tool where the queue can be selected. These are behind the scenes algorithms that determine what edits are displayed to users first (based on vandalism probability). There are all types of ways to calculate this with varying accuracy. Right now, it seems like the "CBNG" queue has the greatest chance of showing you an instance of vandalism. CBNG is a third-party algorithm. I wrote and developed the "STiki" approach, so that is why I have some preference for it. Because all the approaches are different, they may find vandalism another does not. If you are using the CBNG queue and find your vandalism hit-rate slowing down during a long session, it may be worthwhile to switch queues and see if this helps things.
Third, rollback is not required to use STiki. There is some discussion whether we should make it a requirement -- but given the fact we have had very little abuse using the tool, we're inviting everyone to the party. If you are curious why you were able to do "rollbacks" in STiki when you didn't have the "rollback" permission, this is because STiki implements something called "software rollback" for those who don't have the native right. In this case, STiki does a lot of work to determine "what would a rollback do?" and then makes an edit to the same effect. This is far less efficient than native rollback, but gets the job done!
Hello SwisterTwister! I was delighted to receive your surprise this evening, but also a little mystified. I would love to know what it was that brought me to your attention. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was patrolling recent changes for recently active users to award barnstars, and I saw you've been extremely active with vandalism removal. I wanted to say thanks to users for their contributions. :) SwisterTwistertalk00:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is always pleasing to be recognised. Encouragement from one's peers is most welcome. I thank you.
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Thanks for your work with Stiki - just writing to let you know that this guy's edit to Highgate Cemetery, while not particularly useful (which is why I've not put it back) was not vandalism or anything close, just cluelessness; I believe the article explains why. therefore I removed your warning, up to you what if anything you want to do next.
I think it's more than a test edit even, it is commonly believed by, er, a certain type of person that the place is indeed haunted. Actually it's well worth a visit if you're in London - especially the old half which is like a forest full of tombs.... EggCentric11:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sadly, we moved from Wales to England. I used to sell in London, hence the driving in and through Highgate. I am probably more Welsh than if I had continued to live there! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently pointed to an edit that you reverted with STiki. Can you explain to me what was wrong with that contribution and why the editor needed to be sent a vandal warning? --EpochFail(talk|work)17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EpochFail!
The revision would have been more credible and easier to understand, had the editor completed the Edit summary box.
The "vandal" warning also suggests that it could have been a "test" edit. The level of warning is automatically chosen by STiki, and posted, without any involvement from me.
You seam to be the nice kind of Wikipedian, we all make mistakes, good on you for acknowledge it. Vandalism is a big problem, and its good we have diligent people like you fighting it. Don't get complacent, and be sure to keep the kid gloves on forthe Noobs.Zath42 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Gareth Griffith-Jones! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contribution to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ÐℬigXЯaɣ08:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the vandalism
Dear Gareth:
Thank you for catching and undoing the vandalism on the page "Geometrical-optical illusions."
As a scientist who has hopes that Wikipedia will be a reliable repository of knowledge, I am heartened by how well it is maintained by volunteers like you.
Good wishes, belatedly, on your 70th birthday. Gwestheimer 16:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
How very kind of you to take the trouble to write this. It always feels good when appreciation is demonstrated. I am looking forward to Wales's three test tour. All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit on Preferans
I appreciate your welcome, and sorry for a short message (I'm in a hurry), but what I added to Preferans page is truth, but you marked it as Vandalism.
I'm a regular player of Preferans in Georgia (near Russia), and here we know many etymologies and historical details about Preferans.
I added in parentheses that mountain points are also called dump points (to clarify), and that also in russian that's called "gora" points.
Can you confirm that you didn't know about this? I don't care about editing wikipedia pages if moderators will ignore contributions and them vandalisms.
I can confirm that I did not know about this. The vandalism tag will be removed and my revision "undone" ... I shall put the matter right, straight away now. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Being a Welshman, my sport is Rugby Union, a game you Georgians are rather good at!
Thanks a lot for your kind answer. To be honest, I gained some knowledge after this issue, for example, where to reply and how to properly use Talk page. I appreciate that we resolved this in a civilized way (many individuals online aren't so polite). Maybe my contribution wasn't important, but I hope I'll contribute more about topics that I'm more knowledgeable, and I hope all moderators will behave like you and show a better way. And by the way, as far as I know, Rugby was invented in England, and tbh, though our football efforts are failing, in Rugby we are having some success. I wish your team success in the next championship, too!
Hello again! Thank you for your charming response. It is appreciated. I have taken the liberty of a little tidying up. On going into 'Edit' mode, you will understand. I could see what you were trying to achieve.
Yes, rugby football originated at the boys' school in Rugby, which is simply called Rugby.
It is the national game of my country, Wales.
The following may be useful to you:
To sign a message, use ~~~~
To prevent readers from getting your posts on talk pages mixed up with those of other users, be sure to sign your messages! To sign your username, simply type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. When you save the page, these will be converted to your signature followed by a date stamp. To sign without a date stamp, use three tildes (~~~) instead. To type the signature code (~~~~) in faster, click on the signature icon in the toolbar at the top of the edit box, which will insert the code wherever the blinking cursor is.
That's great. I'm learning more markup rules as I watch your edits, also how to sign. It's great to see another country like mine speaking of its independent traditions (our country has long struggled for independence).
Thanks for collaboration, I hope we will work together again to enhance this wonderful site. Good luck!
Good evening Luka. That's excellent ... as is your command of English. I would like to be your "buddy", and help you and work with you, so please make sure that you give me your User name. I have tremendous respect for the people of Georgia. You are an example to impress the whole planet. All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these warm words, though I'm not that sure about my english :)) My username is luciusmalfoyy (and my real name Luka Ramishvili), hopefully it didn't get deleted.
Anyway, I would be happy to work with you, too, and to learn from you if you allow me that. Wikipedia will be our main source of knowledge in the near future, so the more we'll work in synergy, the better the result, for us and the rest. Hope to see you soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.3.71.239 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Luka,
Have you logged-in? You are still not signing your posts, and even if you are still contributing as an IP, you can still sign and date as described above. I am delighted with your reply, and, no, your name has not been deleted(!) What do you plan to do first on Wikipedia? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've logged in. I usually don't make lengthy edits, but rather try to edit opinions disguised as facts. I was disappointed when I saw that wikipedia page about lesbians said: "woman generally can easier and more naturally establish romantic and sexual relationships with other woman, rather than men". I'm not a sexist, but that sentence was just not true, if that was the case, heterosexual relationships wouldn't be dominating for centuries, and natural means "something nature meant that way", and contrary to the author's opinion, heterosexuality is a more natural thing (because pleasure from sex is a product of brain reward system to force us have sex=>children). That's a large subject, and of course that article was protected (I imagine the level of vandalism there), and I wrote on the talk page and they (someone from moders) seem to have corrected that.
I believe that while I may not be knowledgeable enough to write complete articles, I may be able to do enough to make certain articles better (my main concerns are articles about math, physics and computer science).
So you overcame the password obstacle ... was that difficult?
I had a look at Lesbian. Is that the article to which you tried to edit? As an "anon" (or IP) you would not have had access, but you have now because you are editing as a registered User. When did you post on that talk page? Recently? You said your message was removed. That should not have happened.
By the way, just a tip: it is a helpful to the recipient to add a link to the specific article/Discussion/Talk page – as I have done today (lesbian) – to take one to the relevant item page. You can also be more specific like this example: here. That link was merely "copied 'n' pasted". Easy. Even for an old boy like me!
Thank's for your contribution to The King's School, Chester where you reverted the edit by 86.132.226.144. I believe that 86.132.226.144 gave valid reasons for removing that part of the information in the controversies section: that is, that it is unverifiable, un-encyclopaedic and not notable enough for current interest ('medieval' was the term used by 86.132.226.144). I have previously tagged the information in question with 'citation needed' although no such citations have since been provided by the user who originally added the information (Tin55man). As a user with more experience than me, how long do you think they must have to provide proper verification for the information before you can delete it for the reasons I have just talked about? Strangemole (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just run through the history since Tin55man recent editing, looking at each page critically. I would consider that the time passed since your posting the tags is quite long enough and I shall revert the article to your preferred version. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Gareth Griffith-Jones! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and DℬigXray
9:11 am, 10 June 2012 (UTC+1)
Usually when I'm informed of an improper revert I revert myself and strikeout the warning on the user's talk page with a "Sent this in error, sorry," note, but what you choose to do is your own personal technique. Improper reverts happen from time to time; I've made a few over my career. You don't know if no one tells you. Just remember the vandalism policy says anything that's a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia isn't vandalism. To me it looks like this IP thinks a 737 was delivered today, so he reduced the order count by one and increased the current fleet by one. While sources would be ideal, you would be better off using manual undo and saying "unsourced, please re-add if you have one" in the edit summary, then going to the talk page of the IP and give them a templated welcome messages about sources. This welcomes the newbie instead of scaring them off while also educating them on how they can improve their editing. Usually when I've screwed up it's because I'm moving through the various vandalism hunting tools too fast and need to slow down and read the edits more carefully.
Please understand I'm not trying to be a WP:DICK, I'm just giving you advice, vandalfighter to vandalfighter, on how you can improve you technique and avoid having someone drag you to the dramafest at WP:ANI. Thanks! N419BH21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have another situation with Compdude123 agreeing with me on one aspect, namely, the main issue that caught my attention – that the inclusion of planes on order, in the info' box, should be reverted (my original revision) – but disagreeing with the reverting of the minor revision, the addition of one plane to the fleet total, as you have explained to me here.
I appreciate your guidance on the subject. I understand how important it is to encourage new editors. May I ask you, in your opinion, do IPs, in general, ever realise that they have a Talk page. I often modify a warning, and add Welcome postings, as I have done with this IP, but I do wonder if they are ever read. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it varies tremendously. I have seen IPs become active on talk pages, but it's fairly rare, and even more rare for it to be in good faith. It's more common for an obvious vandal/troll to take the talk page warning and start whining about it, hence my User:N419BH/reversion page. For good-faith IPs, it usually occurs that someone has seen something, makes a quick edit, and thence isn't heard from again. IPs seem particularly active in the aviation area; you will often see them updating fleet counts, airline destinations, and airport stats. Some of these IPs are fans, others may very well be employees of airlines, airports, and other vested parties. These IPs are likely dynamic so a number of different IPs are likely the same person or persons. N419BH22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I had guessed. I shall still continue to treat them kindly (as above) and in my short time here, I have encouraged at least four or five to register. I hate to leave a warning on a Talk page, once I discover that it was undeserved. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: I have studied your User:N419BH/reversion page ... very good ... all pertinent and concise. However, I am curious to know how you make use of it when coping with an IP vandal – obvious when the person is registered, but of course he/she would be unlikely of such crimes. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IPs tend to get more chances actually than registered accounts, since the likelihood of collateral damage when a registered account is indeffed, especially with autoblock disabled, is extremely low or nonexistent. That page is really more WP:HUMOR than anything else, if someone is going to complain about a revert either they have a legitimate grievance or they're trolling; either way I respond with a customized message on their talk page. N419BH18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[[|left|thumb|A Tiger Moth flies underneath a bridge on the under-construction M40 in 1968 for a live-action stunt from the film Thunderbird 6.]]
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".
Early life: rem ungrammatical comma - the adjective "cramped" is attributed to the noun phrase "living conditions"; hence, "living" is not an adjective but an attributive noun.
Yes, you are correct. I shall blame my error on having just returned from a two weeks holiday, and the lateness of the hour.
My father, who was a commissioned officer in the British Army, was in Norway for the latter part of World War II, and always spoke fondly of your country.
How's it going?
I thought I'd post here briefly because I've just tidied up my talk page and moved our conversation elsewhere for the moment. (Just in case you missed it, my reply to your last post is here.)
Warm regards (how does one say that in Welsh? Could I use something like "Iechyd da"? - just got that from a website, so I hope it means what they said it means),
--TyrS06:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Tyr,
Glad to hear from you again and to receive your greeting! I am sorry to say that my Welsh is almost non-existant, because I am of the era when English rule over Wales actively prevented the speaking of our ancient language officially in Wales. Quite the reverse nowadays since being given a certain amount of home rule.
I had read your last reply to me – and agree with you on all of the points that you made there; that it is better to just be amused and leave the clowns to irritate each other. For me to stir it up again now would be foolish with regard to your present non-involvement.
Just in case you didn't see it – someone else has posted since me – I have shown my support in The history:
(cur | prev) 08:36, July 3, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (41,542 bytes) (+4) . . (Re- previous edit summary: I agree with DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ... of course it is "orbital" and should be referred to as such here. "Ring road", really!
+ adding para break to clarify meaning of "It") (undo)
Yes, I did see that, thank you very much. Ermmmm ... I feel a bit bad but I have taken issue with a couple of other things the editor has done along the same lines. I don't want to look like I am on his case or spoiling for a fight, though - nothing could be further from the truth. So my strategy now is to shut up and see what happens. I prefer a quiet life, peace, love, harmony and all that stuff. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Life's too short" as the hackneyed cliché tells us, but having just returned, fighting-fit, from two entire weeks without access to any form of PC, I shall be glad to keep an eye open on your behalf whilst you continue your wiki-break.
Your user name is superb ... I often wonder what I would have chosen had I not opted for my own name. I am certain that whatever I chose, I would tire of it. Not yours, though!
Gareth, many thanks for this and your other comments. No, there are no others I was worried about. I did have a look at Steve's changes to the M60 article because it was on a similar theme but actually I thought that what he had done there was perfectly fair so no problem, and I certainly do not want to start a fight with him. Thank you re the username! When I started here in 2002 (aargh!) I had a username which was simply a variant of my real name. I was very active for a while as that but I did eventually get pretty fed up with it all and decided I was better off semi-retired. I came back once or twice with different accounts (I scrambled the passwords of ones I'd left so I wouldn't be tempted back, and it was a lesser sin in those days) but I never managed to give it up entirely, which is why I am now back here claiming to be D, B and K! I do quite like it though it is not always true - I still have moments of idealism about the project! - and I sometimes wish it wasn't so long, but hey. Largely speaking it kind of works. Nowadays I do try to avoid conflict, though it can be difficult when you are doing work of this nature. :) I hope you enjoyed your fortnight away from computers! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was not as unconstructive as you deemed it. Since I am well-versed in Jewish literature and laws, i understand the edit. Perhaps the problem was more your knowledge of the subject than the constructiveness of the edit. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Debresser for contacting me. On the face of it, the edit looked to me as an instance of an attack on Jewish customs, and I am pleased to be instructed here. Please tell me what you wish:
Frankly speaking, even though the edit was correct, I think it is too specific, especially since the addition isn't in the Torah verse. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I try to not revert anything that isn't wrong (technically or factually). Anything that can be said to be more or less okay, I don't touch. So, yes, I'd leave it reverted. If others will disagree, they'll reinstall the edit. :) Debresser (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that's what you must have meant – yes, they look professionally positioned now. Thank you for the gift. Now I must apply my sleuthing expertise to discover when exactly you carried this out. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is that once you fix the template, this page and all other pages displaying that template, got fixed automatically. :) Debresser (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine if you know what you are looking for.
Initially, I had imagined it was this one: (+1) . . (→Your revert: Typo. Unwatch page. Nice to have crossed the path of this polite editor.), but I cannot find your revision. I do not have a "Userboxes" template on my Talk page – although I added one to me User page months ago.
Why is it that I feel like a Welsh (brown) trout about to be landed on the bank of the River Usk near Sennybridge?
I found that glitch quickly, but have made no adjustments in that area for weeks. (?) So ... Okay, just realised that the correction was not made here, was it. It was to the UBX -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A template doesn't end with "}}. A template ends with the end of the template page. Just that the part within the <noinclude> tags is not included when the template is used (which we call "transcluded" here on Wikipedia). If there is a space or whiteline before that tag, it will also be copied. Like in this case. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Just a bit! I could see it was a mess, but thought that if I made just one revert it would alert a watcher (as it did ... got you there ... didn't it?) that someone who watches Eastenders would be better employed. I gave up on it around the time of the arson on the used cars site.
Heh, no you didn't - I don't even live in the UK these days, and never watched it when I did. I happened to see an entry in the edit filter log (and that's where the edit summary came from, btw - it was an automatic tag). And I always have a look through previous IP edits when reverting vandalism - you never know what has slipped through! Cheers Mcewan (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No anyone can see it, but some details of the logged incidents are admin-only. I would start here WP:Edit filter. It's sobering to see the volume of things it picks up! Mcewan (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, fantastic work on the vandalism front. You are very prolific! If I may make a suggestion, I think there some occasions where an edit you've characterised as unconstructive could just be termed a good faith newbie edit (albeit badly worded and unsourced) - and dealt with with a {{cn}}, a gentler welcome notice and perhaps some rewording. I'm thinking of West India and Victor Ponta as examples. Conversely, a couple of cases you dealt with in the same way were clear vandalism and you could have been a bit harder (e.g. List of English football transfers summer 2012 and Amar Singh Shaunki. Unfortunately bad editing, like sin, comes in many forms and degrees of severity :) All the best! Mcewan (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input greatly. Earlier, I was harder on the obvious vandals, but tired of the backlash that was directed here from IPs who never returned to read or comment on my (usually reasonable) reply to them.
Consequently, I have moderated my edit summaries, but took a stronger approach on the talk page warning.
Thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended. Rather than being harder or stronger in general, I think it's more to do with looking at each case individually. Did you know you are the third most active Stiki user over the last 30 days? You've 3,000+ edits in the last 30 days. I'm at around 1,000 total after 5 and half years. Mcewan (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that every case should be judged on its own merit. Whenever it isn't obvious, I link with the article page/article history and often carry out other editing there, over and above revising the incident that drew me there.
Thank you for your words of appreciation ... what you may not know is that I have had two entire weeks away from any computer during the past two weeks, June 14 – June 29. That means I have only been operative for half of that period.
Having looked a bit more closely at the context, and your other edits there, I was dead wrong about Victor Ponta - my apologies. I've requested, and got, semi-protection for his page. Mcewan (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that the article has at last been protected. I have been reverting vandalism on that over past few days, and I have posted a note on Biruitorul's page this evening. Did you notice my comment above about my 15 days away from Wikipedia during the past month? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that, and it probably means you were top of the charts for some of the days. However it's not a competition, and please be careful. Like N419BH above I would hate to see you getting involved in an WP:ANI fracas. Don't get me wrong, you are doing great work - I hope that I may be as prolific one day - it's just that bad judgement calls can have disproportionate repercussions. It sometimes seems that the community makes it harder for registered users than for IP vandals.
When you see repeated vandalism, it's worth going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to ask for a page to be protected. I use Twinkle, which makes it very easy. Not familiar with Stiki, but it may have a similar facility.
Tangentially, I was brought up to on the Isle of Man, so I'm a fellow Celt, and could see Snowdonia on those rare clear days, but probably not Castleton. All the best Mcewan (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your interest. Yes, I too use Twinkle – an excellent tool – and I am able to move in and out of STiki to use Twinkle whenever required at a click of the mouse.
Hi. No I don't think so - it was just an honest mistake. I feel somewhat responsible for pointing you to the WP:Edit filter background page rather than directly to Special:AbuseLog. The latter is linked to in the formaer, but not until quite a way down. I imagine many editors end up on that page looking for the logs themselves, so it should perhaps be linked more prominently. Mcewan (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening McEwan,
I thought that it would amuse you ... and thank you for your additional advice above. I did not see this earlier because I have just been watching the incredible
Roger Federer become the world's Number 1 again in four sets, having lost the first to Murray.He was amazing during the third and fourth.
Greetings - yes I saw a bit of that too and he's an impressive player. Nice to see Murray being somewhat more gracious after the match too. Mcewan (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22:36 Wikipedia:Edit filter (diff | hist) . . (+76) . . Mcewan (talk | contribs) (Add a link to the log in the lead. To help editors who come here for that.)
The problem is that in the cases above, your reverts have either not really fixed the problem, or removed what might be legitimate content, and potentially pissed off a potential editor.
I think you perhaps need to take a bit more time over each one, and not just assume that an IP edit with no summary is unconstructive. Or that the last piece of vandalism is the only one that needs to be reverted.
As you may have noticed, I have now revisited each one of the five revisions listed above, and re-edited each one (including the fifth) and I would like to thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to watch what I am doing. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth, We were having it elsewhere and I've forgotten where.
That was around the 24th of May, Victoria Day. We were on my friend's boat, watching the fireworks.
I think I forget to provide the epilogue to that story:
When we came back to the marina, there were large lights set up which are not normally there. We puzzled over it briefly.
A couple of days later, the facts surfaced. The Prince of Wales was in town that day. So the lights marked the spot where Charles and Camilla had been watching the fireworks with the Premier of Ontario and the Mayor of Toronto. And we were anchored maybe 200 yards away at the time. So that's it.
I just noticed something odd about this page. You are friendly with rj. I would say that that is a tribute to your good nature, Gareth.
Sorry, I have not checked my Talk page since 2010.
I suppose it is an area of interest. I saw the bridge north of Bristol, I think?, the last time I was over, but I'm not going to "go to Wales" for 12 minutes just to say "I have now visited Wales." I need to have a proper trip some year.
I did Cornwall once with a girlfriend; that was just beautiful. And those accents!
I have a Welsh relation, by marriage. He has a page here, but I'm not going to identify him further.
One of my friends from Toronto was just elected mayor of his town in Somerset, or so I was told on Monday.
Makes me want to head over your way again. Varlaam (talk)
Thank you very much for responding so fully. I believe maybe you were contributing to Talk:Wales at the time, or possible contributing to the Discussion page for the Welsh film Hedd Wyn led me to believe you had an interest in Wales. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From one STiki user to another: this was not really unconstructive, atleast not warranting a revert. (i admit the grammar is better in the reverted version. still...) What do you think? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I am pleased to make your acquaintance. You seem to be a bit of a wonder boy ... or girl ... I have no way of telling. Please come to this place of mine whenever you want to discuss a Wikipedia edit/subject. Cheers!
Hahah! I am a guy (i think i have provided a link to my facebook profile on my user page) Me a wonder boy? How? But thanks! :D And hey, i'd like to suggest u to start archiving your talk page, as on a slower connection, it takes ages for the complete page to load, and when it does, the scroll bar becomes tiny. Just a suggestion! :) Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to go there. But, I suffer in the same way, so understand perfectly.
I don't get involved with Facebook or Twitter, but very "open" here on this and my User page.
I was discarding lots and reduced it by more than a third, but it has grown rapidly, recently, and requires a firm approach. See no point in tucking 'stuff' away where no-one will ever look. I shall address it promptly ... BTW, what time is it now with you? All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to go where? Anyways, it is 00:26 here in India (at the time of saving my comment). Or you can go to my user page. there, my local time is displayed too. :P The archiving suggestion is just cz my usual 3G connection was down for some time (it has been restored), and i had to use by backup 2G internet connection (which is obviously slow) and so it was difficult to reply to this post, which was at the bottom of your talk page. That all :) Anir1uph (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to click on my name in the blue box on the Talkback display, you would be brought directly to this section (then it may jump back and forth a little ... for a second or two) but you will finish here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no that does not happen. A web page like wikipedia loads linearly (from top to bottom), so this section will not load till all above it get loaded. And only when this section has finished loading, will the web browser shift the view to this section. Of course, while using a fast connection, that seems instantaneous. The up and down you are talking about is generally due to web page images taking more time to load than text. So the browser shifts the view as it allocates space to incorporate images as and when they load. Thanks (and perhaps sorry for the technical description) Cheers! Anir1uph (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i work with computers and some programming too, but mostly i am studying to become a physicist. Yeah, it 5 am here. Its my summer vacations, and I usually work through the night. It was great to 'meet' you here! Good night! Anir1uph (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks
Thanks so much for the greeting - belated or otherwise :) - it is much appreciated and creative too boot. I mentioned once that we get a limited amount of rugby coverage here in the US. Well we got to see two of the three games in the State of Origin series recently and, after watching the Six Nations and Rugby World Cup over the years, I was asking myself "Where are the throw ins from the side?" and "Why are there so few scrums?" then it came to me that I'd heard the terms Rugby Union and Rugby League over the years and mistakenly assumed they were the same. Thanks goodness WikiP is here so that I can learn the difference between the two. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of your summer. MarnetteD | Talk16:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You too. I remembered that you liked watching the (few) Six Nations matches that they broadcast in the United States. Thanks for the hyperlink above (Australian 'league') – and I shall expect the US to do even better in the next Rugby Union World Cup. Each year they get better and better, which is remarkable considering how few play the game. I shall enjoy learning more about 'Union' over on your side. Any suggestions?
I don't know if there is any one place to get good info about US Rugby but that is probably because I haven't searched much. Even though we have Rugby Super League (United States) it gets almost no coverage and little sponsorship. Major League Lacrosse has better coverage since they have a TV deal with regional cable TV channels. Interestingly Colorado has had two teams - the Denver Barbarians and the Gentlemen of Aspen RFC - that have been around for awhile and been competitive at times. A small suburb just east of Denver called Glendale had a stadium Glendale, Colorado#Infinity Park built just for rugby and I even got to see a game of the Churchill Cup that was played there a couple years ago. I suspect that progress will be slow until TV gets involved. They spend the big money. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
0
Thanks :)
Hey Gareth,
Thanks for the Wimbledon strawberries - I feel like I'm there!
I'm starting to have a slight suspicion that you might be a bit of a sports fan. :)
DBigXray has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thank you, DBigXray!
I appreciate your friendship and believe we have a good team spirit on STiki. Making a worthwhile contribution to the maintenance of Wikipedia and enjoying healthy, on-going discussion means a lot to me. Again, thank you for your kind words.
Just FYI, I have reverted your edit and fixed the issue I believe you had with it. The group was indeed co-founded by J.T. Ready, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League as a neo-nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.8 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can see where someone would revert an edit that led to a redlink'ed article. I just tried a couple variants of the name until I found him and there it was, cleanly sourced about who J.T. Ready was and what his connection to Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.8 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Griffith-Jones,
I recently shortened the Douglas Maddon entry for the simple reason that I am, or rather was, him, and would rather the entry was as minimal as possible - in particular not revealing my actual identity. The information was not 100% accurate and in any case the books only sold a few hundred copies, over a decade ago, and are of little importance. Given my present job, I'd rather not be associated with them. I think the entry was created by an unduly admiring ex-student.
94.173.11.161 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Sorry to butt in here - Douglas you may also want to have a look at WP:BLPHELP (Biographies of living persons/Help) which is designed for this sort of issue. There's a lot of info there but please note in particular the OTRS email contact (under, er, "Contacts") with regard to privacy concerns, and also that unless "executive" action of the sort mentioned there is taken, the page history will continue to contain the deleted material. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Douglas. Thank you for the information. If I had known that the IP address is your own, or that you were editing on behalf of yourself on another's, I would not have reacted to the unexplained removal of so much copy. I wonder if your admiring student returns to read their contribution?
@My ever welcome "TPS". Your involvement here is most welcome. I trust you had an enjoyable holiday.
POSTSCRIPT: – to both of you I have just rolledback to your revision, Douglas. I have also asked that the remaining (now very short) article should be deleted -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble was, in error, I nominated the Talk first. Then, on realising my mistake, thought that I had better make sure as this is the first attempt.
Addendum: Douglas you might also want to have a look at WP:RFO if your privacy situation is feeling rather acute and immediate! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum 2: Douglas... just to add, the revision history of the article has now been edited to remove the privacy issue. So the article in its current stublike state is still having its proposed deletion debated, but it's rather less of an immediate and problematical thing with this data now gone. Hope this helps, DBaK (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion etc
Hi Gareth; thank you for the note. I think it's fine now. Douglas seems to have gone a bit quiet and in any case may not know about AfD and so on. Given his concerns, which seemed obviously legitimate, I took it to WP:RFO and asked for help by email, and some nice person has since been along and removed all the problematical stuff in the edit history. So the article is "safe' in terms of the privacy issue. As for what happens next, my answer is "nothing much" is the sense that Douglas is presumably happy with what has been done here, and the AfD will run its course. I suppose the the AfD is now relatively unimportant and I'm pretty agnostic on what should happen to the article now; given the stub to which it's cut back there seems to be little point in keeping it. Having said that, those sorts of debates can get a bit awkward if someone shows up and starts saying No, no, this is a vital article, you must not delete it; but if that happens they or someone else will have to take on the job of building it back into something useful. I'm not going to get into a fight over this, but I suppose that if the article did continue to exist I would try to keep an eye on it, as a courtesy to Douglas, and try to ensure that further BLP policy violations did not occur. Of course it would be helpful if Douglas himself were around and commenting on this, but I'm happy to try to help on the basis that it is better that Wikipedia does not unnecessarily annoy people! I must say that I thought you did very well with all of this and that Douglas, if he has gone away with any impression at all, will have gone away thinking that we do care about BLP and try to do the right thing by it! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had thought it a shame that Douglas is probably unaware of all that has been put here since his initial posting ... but that is so often the case when IPs post on editors pages ... they rarely return. I, too, shall keep his page on my watchlist. Can you guess who your nice person is? Thank you for your help. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Yes, I know who it is because the email was signed with their Wikipedia editor name. It's not someone I know but I assume that they're on some kind of duty roster for picking up those emails, and have the necessary magical powers to make stuff disappear as required by policy! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Road
Yes it is absolutely fine, my main issue was with the real world information, which is now taken care of. Nice work. Currently we are doing Godfather part II yes? And hopefully we can get around to Godfather Part I and No Country soon. --JTBX (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply – glad you're happy with what I've done where we are both employed.
Hi Gareth, Just bringing to your attention edits made to Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 by the IP 108.171.192.209. I saw you warned and reverted edits by this user yesterday, they are now up to their fourth revert in 24 hours. I've given a level 4 warning and chosen to try and educate the user rather than reporting them. I don't know if there's anything else you might want to add to what I've written on their talk page? Hopefully they will heed advice and go on to become good editors. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fraggle81, As requested, I have added to your excellent posting on the IP's talk page – will they even know it exists! – and because of that , have copied both to the article's discussion page. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion on the talk page, the result was a merge. The information has not been merged so I went ahead and merged it. The dialog is notable, it can be reworded, but is necessary for the article. I've readded it and trimmed so it can be more fitting. Valoemtalk20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I already had the article on My watchlist I have been fully aware of the 'merge' from the outset ... I wonder if you had noticed this revision?
I tend to agree with RJ. But you are correct. It probably should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than here, so I shall copy'n'paste this section there. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In This revert, you undid my edit with a comment "Remove nonsensical garbage."
The material was:
If you want text that will only be visible when viewing the Wiki source code to a page, and will not appear in the resultant HTML source code, the {{Void}} template expands to nothing. This produces smaller web pages than HTML comments, which are included in the HTML.
Um, it seemed grammatically correct and comprehensible to me. Maybe I could have phrased it better, but it doesn't seem in the least "nonsensical". Can you explain precisely where it stops making sense for you?
... from here: "the {{Void}} template expands to nothing. This produces smaller web pages than HTML comments, which are included in the HTML." How can anything expand to "nothing"? And the following sentence confuses me entirely ... What is the reason for your revision?
I always use this: The format is to surround the hidden text with '<!--' and '-->' and may cover several lines, e.g.:
<!-- An example of hidden comments
This won't be visible except in "edit" mode. -->
Please give an example when you would use the 'template void' instead!
"Expand" is the term used by mediawiki itself (e.g. in Special:ExpandTemplates) for the process of replacing a template invocation by the text of that template. There are two forms: transclusion (done at page-retrieval time) and substitution (done at page-save time). Normally the replacement is larger than the template invocation, but there are exceptions. like {{bullet}} (which "expands" to • ), {{(}} (which "expands" to {), and, of course, {{Void}} (which "expands" to the empty string).
It's also the standard computer-science term for the operation of any textual substitution preprocessor, like Template:TeX. m4, the C preprocessor, etc. So I use it even if the "expansion factor" is less than 1.
Regarding your request for an example, it's useful if you prefer that the text is only visible to Wiki editors, and does not add to WMF's network bandwidth bill being transmitted to ordinary wikipedia readers (who will only see the comment if they look at the HTML source).
Any long or bulky comment is particularly useful for this, especially if it explains something internal to the wiki (like a markup technique used to produce a particular effect; {{Void|I can't use Template:Convert here because it produces the unwanted output "blah"...}} or {{Void|Don't use rowspan here, because it makes the table unsortable}}) rather than a comment on the encyclopedic content like <!-- Different sources give conflicting dates of birth; this appears to be the best answer because blah blah -->
Template:Void can cover several lines, too. Just put {{^| at the beginning, and }} at the end. As long as it's properly nested mediawiki markup inside, all will be well. (Which is not the case with nested HTML comments.)
Perhaps a better way of saying it would be something like
HTML comments are included in the HTML generated by the MediaWiki software, transmitted to each reader of the wiki page, and ignored by the reader's web browser. Thus, they do cost a small amount of network bandwidth for each reader of the resultant page. Another way to include a comment in the wiki markup uses {{Void}}, which can be abbreviated as {{^}}. This template "expands" to the empty string, generating no html output; it is visible only to people editing the wiki source. Thus {{Void|A lengthy comment here}} generates a slightly smaller, faster-loading web page than <!-- A lengthy comment here-->. The difference is usually too small to matter, compared to the 17000 bytes of boilerplate included in each wikipedia page, but might matter for very large comments.
It most definitely is. Thank you for such a full explanation. You have been very patient. I have copied'n'pasted my edit summary of a few minutes ago for you to read here ...
(cur | prev) 15:09, July 26, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (62,007 bytes) (+367) . . (Reverted to revision 502700405 by 71.41.210.146: Following full clarification from the IP editor, the revision is re-instated. ( P'haps tweaking the copy for ease of reading). (TW)) (undo)
Please have a look at it again and perhaps – as you have suggested above, "... Maybe I could have phrased it better," – have a go at a little rephrasing. With kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a stripped-down variant of my comment above. After a bit of experimentation, it turns out that (mea culpa for false statements) MediaWiki does strip out HTML comments when generating HTML output. (I looked at wikipedia HTML source and saw comments, but didn't check if they were fromthe wiki text.) So the {{^}} style is actually of limited use. Still, there is some use, so I documented it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to include a comment in the wiki markup uses the {{Void}} template, which can be abbreviated as {{^}}. This template "expands" to the empty string, generating no html output; it is visible only to people editing the wiki source. Thus {{^|A lengthy comment here}} operates similarly to the comment <!-- A lengthy comment here-->. The main difference is that the template version can be nested, while attempting to nest HTML comments produces odd results.
Thank you, Mark, for pointing this out to me and please accept my sincere apology ... I had no idea that had happened. It is fortunate that the article, Ada (programming language) must be on your Watchlist. I totally agree with your statement on your user page regarding compulsory registration for all editors.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for replying =) I found you on here and because you said you are open to c/e I figured why not ask if you can do one of my articles? I've been working on "I Could Fall in Love" and if your interested in c/e the article and what not you are welcome =) Best, Jonatalk to me18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a quick glance down your talk page and noticed this. How does it work? What happens if we (the other editor and I) disagree? You are my first request, so I don't know the groundrules. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That user is rarely on and if anything it would be great to have more eyes on the article to spot errors. You may want to add {{inuse}} when you are editing the article so no one interrupts you. Best, Jonatalk to me21:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means "Thank you for that", Jack! Be assured! Any written Welsh is strictly limited to friendly Wikipedian talk pages, so, with that in mind, Cyfarchion!, which means "Greetings!"
Tell me about the 'Requests' tab, please. I see the above request to me is there: [3].
Under the entry you have found for that article on the requests page, you can put {{working}} followed by your signature. When you have completed the CE, you can put {{done}} followed by your signature on the following line. Someone else will remove the entry later. It is also a good idea to put {{GOCEinuse}} at the top of the article to be edited, and leave it there until you are done. Thanks for the translations—Cyfarchion! was a bit of a worry... --Greenmaven (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! I suppose you are right ... a bit like ****off, did you think? I thank you for all the above assistance. I was a little concerned that if another had been asked, it could cause me difficulties, but feel better about it now.
This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last edited at 23:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) (11 years ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.
... and {{under construction}} produces this:
This user talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user talk pagehas not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Gareth Griffith-Jones(talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Updatetimer)
Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today! You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)tHE[reply]
Hey, the modification I made to the Pascua Lama wiki page yesterday was correct, why did you undo it? That legal case that is being quoted on that page does not prevent Barrick from mining Pascua Lama, it only affects an adjacent parcel that the road to the mine traverses. Mr. Villar has mining rights for that other parcel, but not surface rights, so he cannot prevent Barrick from using that road to get to/from the Pascua Lama mine. Please see the following for more information:
This article is referenced by http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=wmelpr which says:
"Disputes over ownership of the land for Pascua-Lama have
dragged on in court for years. A man named Rodolfo Villar acquired a
3100-hectare parcel of land in Chile in 1996 that was proximate to
Barrick’s Pascua-Lama site.70 Villar thought that he could get a sizeable
sum for the land when Barrick came looking to purchase it in 1997 since
the only road to the mine ran through it.71 On the same day Barrick
approached Villar, it purchased a much smaller plot for $650,000; however,
Villar received only $20 for his parcel, in part because of an untrustworthy
lawyer.72 Villar sued Barrick in 2001, and in 2006 the 14th Civil Court of
Santiago nullified the contract of sale and ordered the land returned to
Villar.73 Barrick appealed this decision arguing that the deciding judge was
not qualified to decide, but the Supreme Court upheld her competency.74
The website of the Chilean judiciary shows activity in the case as recent
as July 6, 2011.75"
The article http://www.thestar.com/article/190390 is clearer however that Barrick can still use the surface road that runs through Mr. Villar's plot to get to/from the Pascua Lama mine regardless of the outcome of this court case:
"Even if it fails in its legal battle against Villar, it won't thwart Barrick from using the narrow roads to Pascua-Lama, Garver said. That's because Villar would only control mining rights to the disputed territory, not surface rights.
Garver said surface rights are all the company needs to shuttle trucks to and from Pascua-Lama."
So, as you can see, this is a "nuisance lawsuit", which is exactly what Barrick calls it. It has no effect on whether or not Barrick can mine Pascua Lama.
Please fix the Wiki page for Pascua Lama to reflect these facts (or revert back to my changes which you undid).
Thank you for such a full and concise summarising of the situation. Having studied it, I went to the article to re-instate your editing, only to find that you had already done just that. No hard feelings. Sincerly, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I reverted your change in Windows 8. The reason is succinctness. You see, Netbook is subclass of laptop. If it is a netbook, then it is a laptop too.
There is of course, a second reason: Not giving some of our certain visitors (cough!) a reason to start cramming other genres in. Surely we don't want a sentence that runs like "it runs on notebooks, subnotebooks, netbooks, slimbooks, ultraportables, ultrabooks, ruggedized laptops, Microsoft Tablet PCs, Tablet PCs and tablet computers." And believe me, they will do that if we let them feel it is appropriate. I am ready to bet they have never read WP:GACR.
Thanks for the heads up! Of course, you are correct. Actually, I added "notebook" – and now you have taught me another thing new – I had never heard of 'Netbook' before reading this. I have only recently upgraded to Windows 7, having been on XP four weeks ago.
XP? Wow! Actually, we have a venerable HP Mini 2140 netbook in our household that is still on XP Home Edition. Anyway, when I saw your original edit, I assumed you did not mean "desktops, laptops, laptops, tablets"; so, I thought you probably meant something beside a "full-sized laptop". I interpreted it to "netbook".
I imagine that you will be changing to Windows 8 as soon as it is available, won't you? For my part, I always let other people suffer the teething problems that invariably follow the launch of a new system. What are you using at present? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Actually, I am a bit of late adopter in spite of being an enthusiast. I installed trials of Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 not long after they were released but I never adopted 2000, Vista or 8. XP and 7 were obvious winners. Best Regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions Gareth, but be careful to only use automated anti-vandal tools when something is clearly vandalism. Even if there was no edit summary at all, this is a case where it is better to open the page in your browser and check it before reverting. Sorry about this, but I'm really going to have to ask you to slow down with the STIKI edits. Note this revert where the editor clearly used an edit summary and you cited the lack of one as the basis of the revert. RyanVesey20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did open the page before making my revision and studied the editing. It appeared to me to be a large removal of copy and there was no replacement of any alternative copy. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some more and the rest of your Stiki edits appear to be fine. Keep up the good work, you should probably take a closer look at that Zach Wahls one and make sure your revert was correct. If it wasn't vandalism and is just a content issue, it might be better to reinstate it and take it to the talk page. RyanVesey20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Apparently you undid my corrections to the Kid vs Kat page (and possibly the "episodes" page, where I requested the same corrections). As I tried to explain in the Talk page, there is no Season 3 of the show, and no plans to make one. Period. I'm an old friend of the show's creator, Rob Boutilier. The "cited source" used by the "stalker" (as Rob calls him) who is making these claims proves nothing of the sort. The show has not been renewed, sadly, and there are no plans whatsoever to make a third season. I quoted Rob on the Talk page, but of course there is no official source beyond that which I can link to. However, the onus is on the person who claimed there WAS going to be a third season, and since he has no proof of such a thing, I would ask that the deletion stand If not, I'll ask Rob to try yet again to personally correct this misinformation so fans won't continually be misled by lies. Thank you.69.165.162.236 (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no Season 3, and there are NO plans to renew the show at this time. Period. I asked the show's creator (an old friend) Rob Boutilier about that again this morning, in reference to this Wiki entry, and he replied: "Sigh... That's my online stalker spreading misinformation. There's no season 3 and there's no dvd... only itunes."
The supposed source link for the Season 3 info leads only to a fan site, "Mr. Freak Wiki," which says that some fans have plans to make unauthorized Youtube videos of K vs K material. That's irrelevant, and in no way authorized (and they don't seem to exist yet, in any case). I am deleting any reference here to a third season, and there is no excuse whatsoever for reversing that action.
69.165.162.236 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thank you, it looks fine. If you had the time and clearance to repair the Kid vs Kat Episode Guide, that would be great: the sentence near the beginning "Kid vs. Kat is currently in hiatus until Fall 2012, where its third season will premiere" is BS and should be removed, and the "Season 3: TBA" section also should be deleted. I've made an edit request to that effect on the Talk page. 69.165.162.236 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out your first request. This being my first visit to the Episodes article. The second (Re- TBA) has already been deleted. I shall keep an eye on both articles for you.
Also, I have removed the template warning from your talk page and left a message explaining my reason, for any subsequent reader. Please leave a note when you see this. All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gareth, I hope Ajona doesn't mind me posting here. You should use American (US) English for Selena articles per WP:ENGVAR - I noted an instance of 'favoured' instead of 'favored'; it's not really a big deal but it's for FA and as they say at Tesco, every little helps. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He can't do the review himself, that's like hes supporting an article he nominated, but in this case its an article he has majorly contributed to. The PR system is for another pair of eyes to look through the article and find any errors, etc, that prohibits the article from its projected goal. Best, Jonatalk to me21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Noleander (talk) I have already been following your dialogue with Jona on their talk page earlier today, and the conclusion that I had come to is the same as Jona's here.
I shan't be rushing the copy editing.
Sounds good. Let me know when you're done and I'll start the PR. --Noleander (talk)
Please read my reply there and leave a note to indicate so.
To read more easily what is below, please go to the "History" page of Night
(cur | prev) 07:32, August 17, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (10,506 bytes) (+524) . . (→Cultural aspects: See previous edit summaries!) (rollback 5 edits | undo)
(cur | prev) 07:30, August 17, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (9,982 bytes) (-548) . . (→See also: ... and another,IP. Your edit was too far down the page. I have moved it for you.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:28, August 17, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (10,530 bytes) (-16) . . (Another note to the same IP: Please read the article AFTER saving ... the formatting was all mixed-up and ran off the page in a continuous line.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:24, August 17, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (10,546 bytes) (+565) . . (Reverted good faith edits by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk): Edit was alright ... it was the ""BOLD TEXT"" that caught my eye! Your revision is reinstated. Should use the "Preview" button first before saving...) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:55, August 16, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) m . . (9,981 bytes) (-565) . . (Reverting revision/s by Galaxysurfer77 which are identified as either test editing or vandalism ... using STiki ...) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:20, August 16, 2012 Galaxysurfer77 (talk | contribs) . . (10,546 bytes) (+565) . . (→See also) (undo)
Kind regards,
Congratulations, Gareth Griffith-Jones! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.
I find Stiki expands my use and enjoyment of the encyclopaedia in general – as I invariably open the link to the article whilst making the edit assessment, and then, as well as the page's "history", quite often, the editor's list of recent contributions.
The Yiddish language is written in Hebrew script. If you want to transliterate to Roman script, it should come as an addition to the original script of the language (which, at some point of time was the majority language there). See Birobidzhan as example. Please restore my contribution. 173.180.223.52 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the travellers "maintain a separate language" which implies (when used in the lede) that it is common. Travellers speak English like the rest of the Irish population (with limited Irish use). Their languages are not in regular use and we are giving it undue prominence by having it listed there. A better explanation is in the language section further down.--Dmol (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you say here is fine, but I think the statement that they do maintain a sep. lang. cannot be disputed and should be included in what is, after all, a pathetically short Lead.
I felt that the origins of the use of the term Tiger Mother were worth clarifying. Other on-line sources had described the term as being of recent origin, but having, by chance, come across its use nearly a hundred years ago, I thought this was worth documenting. I had been planning to add an inline reference to the novel.
However I do not feel strongly about this.
I noticed that the definition of "interest" was incorrect on the wiki page. The page essentially stated that interest was the "price of borrowing". This definition of interest is inherently flawed, and, as a result, leads to many incorrect conclusions regarding the catallactic aspects of interest on the economy. Interest is not a price, itself, but one of several factors that determine price. The "price of borrowing" concept is simply the way entreprenuers address the phenomenon of interest, not the definition of interest, itself.
Acceptance of the "price of borrowing" definition hides the fact that artificially lowering the ASKING interest rates in the loan and bond markets by way of credit expansion causes economic calculations to mis-analyze the time-preferences of consumers, resulting in investments that consumers aren't willing to make profitable.
The "price of borrowing" definition leads to the idea that interest can be lowered, or even eliminated entirely, simply by increasing the supply of money and money substitutes. As the concept of interest is a comparison between present and future goods, and is an inherent phenomenon of all economic action, interest necessarily cannot be eliminated.
I would think it obvious that a person would value a a cheeseburger tonight higher than they would value a cheeseburger a year, or ten years, or 100 years from now. Economics has to address this fact, and it does so by way of the interest phenomenon. To reject the time-preference definition, and replace it with the "price of money", would leave economics with no way to account for the passing of time.
The "price of borrowing" definition also suggests that one can "buy" money with money. A person can't buy a cheesburger today by promising a cheesburger( or 2 cheeseburgers) in the future. The same holds true for cars, houses, insurance policies, and everything else that people buy, sell, and trade. There is no logical reason that money is an exception. No person or business capable of sound reasoning would exchange their products AND the waiting time for their own products back at a latter date.
Even if an individual adamantly rejects the time-preference phenomenon against all the flawed conclusions that result, and accepts the "price of borrowing" view, I think the wiki page should atleast include the catallactically teneble definition of interest for those who want to learn about the effects of artificial interest rate manipulation on the economy and how it creates the boom/bust cycle.
To leave theave the definition of natural interest out of the wiki page would be equivalent to defining inflation as "the rise in prices", instead of "the increase in the supply of money". It confuses the cause with the effect, a rather basic logical fallacy.(Maybe I should look at the wiki page on inflation, lol)
If simply editing the page by adding the correct definition of interest is not the way to present the knowledge, I am willing to add to wikipedia in a more helpful manner, providing that I am pointed in the right direction. It just seems bogus to have a wiki page on interest with no mention of time-preference, and no distinction between interest and it's effects on economic calculation.
I have copied your revision to my page for ease of discussion:
Interest is the difference in valuation of present goods versus future goods. It is not "the price of borrowing", but the manifastation of the fact that goods which are ready for consumption are of higher value than goods not yet produced.
Before we go further, I would prefer that you first register, as indeed you do yourself realise that you should (above) so please do so. I have a lot to write here anmd I find it difficult talking to numbers.
Hey there, Gareth. Noticed you reverted a pair of wrestling articles recently, both of which I've undone. The first backed into a bit of vandalism that can be seen on the article's history and the second removed clarification. I've not familiar with that particular tool but just wanted to give a head's up in case this eases into ways STiki may be inaccurate. Take care now. Papacha (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya [User:Papacha|Papacha]]!
I have revisited both. Thanks for the links. The first looked like vandalism by an IP when I checked previous revisions ... but mea culpa ... not far enough back! The second looked like a test edit and I removed it because I felt it was stating the obvious. I checked the talk and contribution pages of both IPs, but had not left warnings.
I do appreciate your taking the time to draw these to my attention.
Hi. I declined -- for now -- your request at the vandalism noticeboard ("WP:AIV") to have this IP blocked. I spot-checked some edits and couldn't see any vandalism of the plain-vanilla sort reported at WP:AIV. Do you have some sort of content dispute or edit war going on? Or has this person been using other accounts I'm not aware of?
The vandalism noticeboard is really just for the blatant stuff (as covered by WP:VANDAL).
I am totally confused. I am not aware of this. I have no postings on User_talk:68.185.89.83, and furthermore, I have not made a request at WP:AIV recently.
But the page's edit history and the diff both say you made it -- am I missing something? Might someone else be editing with your computer? Please take a look at your recent contributions history and verify that you made all those recent edits. Otherwise I may have to block this account until we understand if there's a security problem.
Why you warned this person for these seemingly benign edits.
How this IP got reported to WP:AIV with the report attributed to your name but without your knowledge.
That's why I'm wondering if there is a software problems somewhere. The other possibilities are that your account's compromised (which is looking less likely now) or one of us is crazy.
Looking at my contributions, I believe the answer is that STiki is automatically posting a request at WP:AIVin my name when the IP has passed final warnings.
I believe this is the answer, and nothing sinister is happening.
... Post Script. It is the same with both IPs (not just the one, as you write above) and the warning process with STiki is automatic providing I have it checked "on". The developer, Andrew West, is working on revising this aspect. I understand he aims to give us more control.
Thank you for being so concerned for me and being so charming.
.svg){kind=small}
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC) (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
My 1961 Land Rover Series IIA
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Well done. You have done a splendid job. What a task! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent (today) contributions to Wikipedia are being discussed.%E3%81%A8%E5%AF%8C%E5%A3%AB%E5%B1%B1(%E3%81%B5%E3%81%98%E3%81%95%E3%82%93).jpg)
Egg Centri c 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Gwestheimer 16:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
in the toolbar at the top of the edit box, which will insert the code wherever the blinking cursor is.
Done-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)