User talk:JezGrove/Archive 1

Reference Errors on 19 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Leon Brittan page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie

Hi . I reverted your edits cited to Private Eye primarily due to wp:FRINGE by the way - if you see comments on that published in a bunch of other, also reliable, sources - feel free to add back in! I'm going to reword some of the stuff you've added about the book also to make it sound more like a review than a random selection of observations. Cheers, Nik thestunned 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Rush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Hydraulic empire page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Samuel Cook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Forsyth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked pages

Hi JezGrove - I'm sorry for the unauthorized editing yesterday. I really have little idea how to use this site. However the additional information you have added to Brian Anderson (boxer) is biased and without context. I don't know if it is your intention to be misleading but I just wanted to add some balance to the biography because I'm hoping that is the point of Wikipedia. I don't know if I have breached some convention as I am the subject of the page but if you are interested in writing a factual biography I would be more than happy to speak with you!Banderson1961 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards Brian

Dear JezGrove - I made you a genuine offer to discus your contribution to the bio Brian Anderson (boxer) I have also contacted to other Wiki. editors both of whom have responded. Yesterday when I was editing your contributions to the bio your responses were immediate. It is of significant note that I have not received any response from you although I acknowledge that you might be simply taking the day off!

Regards Brian Banderson1961 (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Banderson1961, Sorry for the slow response, I was just about to post my response (below) when I saw your second message come in.

Thanks for your message. It certainly wasn’t my "intention to be misleading” (on Wikipedia, it is always best to start from the assumption that edits to an article are made in good faith). Some of the detail I added, for example, includes the quote from the BBC report ("I can say without a shadow of a doubt that boxing is responsible for me being here now. However, I was lucky, I joined a youth club where they had a boxing gym and I got involved in boxing. Instantly I found that it was something I could do, and do very well. It is quite ironic really, because when I was young people used to say 'you're going to end up in prison'. I don't think this is quite what they had in mind”) and also the ones from The Independent (“The then chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbottom, seemed to like what we were doing. I told him I had always wanted to be some kind of social reformer and it was he who suggested that I should aim to become a prison governor. I found there was a graduate scheme and managed to get on it - the first black candidate to do so, in September 1997” and “When I went to Doncaster as a probation officer, I always remember at one point there were six inmates that I used to knock around with. There were a couple of them whose parents used to say 'don't mix with that Anderson because you'll get yourself into trouble'. It was ironic, there we were, all in prison together, but of course I was the one with the set of keys. I just think that in life I made better decisions than the people who are inside. I could quite easily not have done. God knows what I would have done if I hadn't found boxing.”) I was also careful to point out that a report into one of the deaths in custody at Doncaster which found that the Segregation Observation Log had been falsified by a prison custody officer (PCO) on the night of a death had also noted that “In the event, the PCO’s actual checks were better than those recorded in the log”. So I feel it would be unfair to suggest that my edits were intended to deliberately portray you and events that occurred under your leadership in a bad light.

I was about to add that with regard to the parts of the article that you think need more context to balance them, that you should set out your concerns on the article’s talk page so that they can be considered. I see that you have already been advised to do so now.

Best wishes,JezGrove (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear jezGrove Thank you for your response and for some of the contribution you have made to my bio I have no concern regarding the additions you have made to my boxing career. My problem is the biased nature of what you have said about my time at Doncaster and Ashfield. You will have read the reference material and be well aware that a balance could easily have been made but you choose only to use the negative statements. The information is without context and extremely misleading. If you had wanted to make the bio more balanced you could have done so with the material you already had. So I accept that you intentionally drafted a biased bio; I would like to understand why. I will make representations on the bio talk page but I am reasonably certain that you don't need me to direct you!

Regards Brian

Banderson1961 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JezGrove - Sorry but I wanted to give you an example of lack of context. For instance why do you not state when I started working at HMP Doncaster? did you know that I was only there for a few weeks when the death occurred so whilst you are correct regarding it happening on my watch the subsequent referral to the wider culture of falsifying documentation doesn't relate to my time in charge. This is not obvious because of the omission.

Brian

Banderson1961 (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Banderson1961,

I haven’t made ANY edits to the section on your boxing career other than creating the subheading and adding some missing reference details to the citation of a BBC report that was already there.

Just so that we are absolutely clear about this I have no connection – however indirectly - with you, the prison service, or any of the institutions or their inmates. There is simply no reason at all that I would wish to create “a biased bio”. I’m by no means the most experienced Wikipedia editor, but I have made numerous edits on all sorts of articles and have never been accused of bias before.

I didn’t add any of the news sources cited in the part of the article relating to your appointment as Governor of HMP Doncaster although I did add use them to add some additional information to the page. I’ve just looked back at them, and none of them specify the date when you commenced in the post and I wasn’t aware of the short time you say elapsed between that date and the death in custody there. If my inclusion of that event in the article gives a misleading impression – and I can see that it could well do, in light of what you say – then it was an honest oversight on my part. Despite what you seem to think, I have no hidden agenda. Please try to assume good faith.

The best way forward is for you to give specific examples on the article’s own Talk page of sentences in the article that you feel are incorrect / unbalanced together with any further information that you believe should be included in them. I am sorry if you feel that my edits have been unbalanced, but I’m sure that all of the issues can be addressed and resolved amicably.

Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reply I think I would like to draw a line under this for now. I never intended for an argument to develop but my emotions are challenging my reasoning at the moment. I am out of my depth with this!

Best wishes

Brian Bganderson1961 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings to Users

I noticed that you gave 82.34.248.179 a warning level 3, without any prior warnings. You should start with a level 1 or 2 and explain the situation to the user rather than simply "tacking on" a warning. --JustBerry (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JustBerry Apologies if I made a mistake - the edits seemed to be deliberately abusive so I used a higher level warning. Thanks for your advice. Best wishes JezGrove (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, not a problem. Just wanted to give you a heads up for the future; I just happened to notice. See you around; happy editing. --JustBerry (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you too, JustBerry JezGrove (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Campbell Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Billington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the River (TV series) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"men are the same as women"?

Did you really intend to revert to that text? [1] I mean, the source does say "women tended to adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than did men", so if you want to change "authoritative" to "autocratic", I'll be fine with that, but "men are the same as women" is false in so many ways. Also you may have taken into account that I was reverting a clear vandal. --GRuban (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRubanYou are right of course - I've reverted my edit, sincere apologies. I hadn't spotted the 21 November vandalism you were undoing and acted too hastily. (Unfortunately that page seems to bring out the worst in some people, and I misread your intentions - sorry.) JezGrove (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force? If you're interested in the Sexism in the technology industry page, the GGTF would seem to be a good fit. And don't worry - we thoroughly believe "men are the same as women". Cough, cough, cough. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GRuban - I'll take a look later and see if there's anything I feel I can contribute to. Best wishes. JezGrove (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"LOOK LISTEN & TAKE HEED." Martinevans123 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dilly Hussain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ware. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Spy

Hi Jez, please can you add a summary for Episode 5? Crookesmoor (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crookesmoor, I'm flattered to be asked! I'll try to get one sorted this afternoon. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jez.... if you really are telling the truth we promise to ship you to America, to start a new life, in an air-tight box. But if not, I'm really not sure what might happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure my training with Houdini will help - if only I'd taken lessons from someone better at wriggling out of anything. JezGrove (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What??? We're not even going to hint as to why and how Alex died? The whole plot axis? Crumbs, how mysterious. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. who was Joe??[reply]

I didn't precis Episode 4 (yet...) in which Alex/Alistair's bizarre truth-detecting algorithm (knocked up in record time, apparently) is revealed. I'm not a big fan of spoilers personally (though I know WP policy allows them - a rather big issue at Mr Robot, I see). But it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you can add the missing details if you want! (And I usually add in the edit summaries that my synopses are iffy and that improvements are very welcome!) JezGrove (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gould (violinist)

A gentle suggestion. It is wonderful that you created this article. It would be good to create links to it, lest you 'hide your light under a bushel.' Otherwise, nobody will find it, or at least it will be difficult for them to do so. A lot of great content gets buried amidst 5 million articles. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again 7&6=thirteen. I had a few 'real world' things to sort out first, but I see you've added some links to the page now - very many thanks! JezGrove (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Fox and the Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Beard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to War and Peace may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

the novel draws to a close, Pierre's wife Hélène dies from an overdose of [[abortion]] medication (Tolstoy does not state it explicitly but the euphemism he uses is unambiguous.{{citation needed|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 02:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kate O'Flynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Room at the Top. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sean O'Connor (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Brothers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Gregg

Re Colin Gregg, I noticed while I was doing a quick Google search while patrolling New pages that he was nominated for a BAFTA for To The Lighthouse in 1984, There's a mention on the BAFTA site here and here's a book reference [2] I just found. But I was in a hurry, so there are probably more out there. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FlowerpotmaN - I'll try and take a look and update the article later. Best wishes! JezGrove (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin Gregg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Secret Agent (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Marchant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the After Dark (TV series) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louiza Patikas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jane Garvey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JezGrove. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie McNish

Hi, looking at the edit log I think we both were editing at the same time, I had no intent to revert any of your edits which all look great and well-referenced. I have just included back one very minor edit to the infobox. All the best and happy editing Mountain^cirque 14:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Mountaincirque, not a problem at all. And thanks for the page move from 'Hollie Poetry' - I had just been about to suggest that on the talk page when I saw that you had done it already! Best, JezGrove (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (JURIES (advocacy campaign)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating JURIES (advocacy campaign), JezGrove!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have merged the content to Jill Saward, as the organisation does not appear to have sufficient individual notability, ref WP:NORG

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rory McGrath

Clearly we still need to keep that page under review - we both missed the last round of unconstructive edits. Do we need to go for a longer period of protection? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ghmyrtle, I've been away this weekend and missed them but I'm home and back online now, so I'll keep an eye out. Best wishes, Jez JezGrove (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living with the Gods

Dear JezGrove, many thanks for tidying up my information about how MacGregor has presented a series called "Living with The Gods" in the article on Neil MacGregor. Vorbee (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vorbee - thanks for taking the time to say thanks! Best wishes JezGrove (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JezGrove. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yrsa Daley-Ward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jane Garvey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Khashoggi

Please take the time to read the refs before you put "Added 'citation needed' tag" : https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/death-of-a-dissident-saudi-arabia-and-the-rise-of-the-mobster-state - now we have five (!) footnotes to one (!) ref.--87.170.192.239 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Could/ should that entire paragraph be supported by that one source, given once at the end? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 87.170.192.239, given the controversy surrounding Khashoggi I felt all of the facts needed nailing down - better that a source is reused within a paragraph so the claims it supports are all clearly verified than that the reader is uncertain about the reliability of a sentence. I don't think most readers of WP would read an entire source to check whether it supports earlier sentences in the paragraph. JezGrove (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that WP:CS says this: The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. If that's any help at all Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, quite the common sense, thanks @Martinevans123: I had the same problem with "he is the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi" and "grandfather Khashoggi was from a family of Ottoman origin". Lazy folks don't read the footnotes and just "Added 'citation needed' tag". Is it the new game now or what? Would you please do me a favor and read that The Spectator article and clarify Jamal Khashoggi's stand point on "democracy"? Alas now we have seven (!) footnotes to that (!) ref. Maybe we should let it so. The readers/user are amazed at the statements from John R. Bradley. --87.170.204.252 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, apologies if I’m being even more stupid than usual (a rare feat!), but despite your link to WP:CS and the quote "[…] so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text" I'm still not clear about whether/why you think my 'citation needed' tags were OTT or not?

At the time, the paragraph began by clearly attributing the source: "According to The Spectator, … " and the full stop of this opening sentence was followed by the ref, which to my mind signalled the end of the reliance on it. The next two sentences made apparently unrelated claims ("Khashoggi became de facto leader of the Saudi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood" and "Crown Prince Mohammed not only rejects Wahhabism, he considers the Muslim Brotherhood the main threat to his vision for the kingdom") and were unreferenced. Then the fourth sentence began, "In 2018 Khashoggi established a new political party…", which was again followed by the same Spectator ref. (See diff [here], I've removed unnecessary links in the quoted extracts above.)

Given the contentious nature of the Khashoggi article and the fact that that there was no indication from the wording that the same source was continuing to be relied on, was it really unreasonable to assume that the two sentences sandwiched between the uses of the ref needed citations? If you think so, I am, of course, happy to apologise to the anon IP editor. However, if we really believe that the causal WP reader is going to read an entire source in order to see what sentences in a WP paragraph it does or doesn't support then I suspect we have another think coming. And if we expect them to take unreferenced claims on trust because they're sandwiched between sourced ones, then that's a whole other problem. Best wishes, Jez JezGrove (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danny Bowes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planet Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Courbet

Hi JezGrove, Why do you undo my contributions to the Gustave Courbet page? Are you the owner of that page? The discovery, published last September, of Constance Quéniaux being the model for the painting "L'Origine du monde" deserves to be mentioned, I think. See the Wiki page on her name. Best regards, Piet PvLHtn (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Piet, the editor who undid your contribution was Coldcreation. As far as I can see, his edit summary was self-explanatory. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PvLHtn. As far as I can tell you reverted my edits without explaining why, so I'm not exactly sure why you are here accusing me of attempting to "own" the Gustave Courbet article! If my edits were mistaken, then an initial assumption of WP:GOODFAITH would have been a nice starting place. Of course, just like everyone else you are free to edit that article - or any other - but your efforts will be better served if you provide edit summaries and include references from reliable sources when doing so. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JezGrove. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SNACC

A tag has been placed on SNACC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, JezGrove/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big ones! Wet ones!! Big wet ones!!! [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin - not sure I got the sockpuppet reference? It's very hard to pick a best Frank Zappa guitar solo. Of course, Dweezil went with Watermelon in Easter Hay. But there are so many to choose from. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was a reference to the invigorating and refreshing cold water of SPI. Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with screenplays by Sadie Jones has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films with screenplays by Sadie Jones has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –xeno^talk 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Piers Plowman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Our Time. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]