Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

You reverted my edit of Takeaway relating to the phone-in scandal - whilst I am in the middle of creating such a page, why don't you think it should be mentioned on Takeaway's main page?Mosherdude91 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosherdude91: It's a lot of data, which could have been streamlined a bit. In addition, some of the edits weren't helpful with refs.GUtt01 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GUtt01 Comments regarding an article belong on the Talk page for that article. You might have replied on the talk page for each article. Instead you seek support for yourself from a higher level editor, or so I take it that Courcelles is a higher level editor. Your edits show up in my Watchlist, so I read them as they appear in that list, and I react to them one by one. Your edits sometimes take an overly long plot summary and shorten it, but not most of the time. It seems something else motivates your edits to articles that are otherwise pretty good as to completeness and up to date citations. They are not Wikipedia Good Articles or Featured Articles; my term of pretty good means that the sections to explain why the novel is noteworthy are included and properly cited, and publication history is included when there are noteworthy aspects of that history. Further there is some consistency in the introductions to these articles and their strucutre, put in place long before I began editing on Wikipedia In past years, I have spent much time reading your new plot summaries, fixing typos, errors in the plot, and so on. You have improved in your writing after earlier discussions between us, but still leave errors behind, errors not found in the previous version of the plot summary, long checked by a variety of editors. WP:TALK has some useful guidance on the talk pages of articles and which topics belong on them. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairieplant: Okay, there's a couple of things to note here:

1. Courcelles is an Administrator, and I was asking him for his opinion regarding the mentions to me you made on multiple talk pages. He regarded their use as, and I quote, "a little unusual. Would have been better operationally to centralize discussion on one page, or a WikiProject page, and just notify the other pages. Four separate discussions is unwieldy." If you had a problem with my edits, it would have been better to discuss them with me through my Talk Page. It would have been a lot better, and I would have happily responded to them.
2. My attempts to redo plots of Agatha Christie novels, mainly those for Poirot stories, may not have been perfect, but recent ones have been aiming towards sticking to suggested Wikipedia guidelines on plot summaries for Novels, per WP:NOVELPLOT. They may not be perfect, but I have tried to reduce details and sentences to cover within the 2-4 paragraph limit it suggests for novel plots.

Suffice it to say, there is no reason to suggest that I want the plot summaries to stick to my style - I'm open to others making amendments and changes if they wish to, but I only hope for them to consider WP:NOVELPLOT when they do. If there are errors and spelling mistakes I make, then I do not mind others making the necessary corrections. Even I sometimes don't like how I write out something, so I change it, it's cause I'm trying to make it sound better if one read it out aloud.

To be honest, the complexity of Christie's plots is something that can be tricky to work with in providing a concise summary of notable plot points, events, and character developments. And <groan> there's one novel I am not sure, but would truly hate reducing its plot summary down - The Big Four. In your opinion, do you think the plot of that novel is too excessive in detail?GUtt01 (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GUtt01 you seem not to remember our interactions over the months and years on the topic of articles about Agatha Christie novels. I am glad you do not mind when others modify your edits. What I hope is that you begin to accept that some of those plot summaries may be just fine as they are, as other editors have contended with the complexity of her plots and found a way to write a concise summary.

Some editor came through on The Big Four, which had a relatively terse summary, and brought it to its present state, I do not recall when precisely. Please do look at the edit history. I decided it was not worth the effort to alter what they wrote in such detail, in part because it looked like a big struggle, and in part because that novel is not well-rated among the many written by Agatha Christie, on account of its meandering plot. I do not know if those editors will struggle with another editor who tosses out their work to document every twist and turn of that plot. More important to me, perhaps in the future, you will reply directly on the article Talk page to any editor who pings you, without checking beforehand with an administrator. My leaving remarks on the article Talk pages one by one, as I encountered them in my Watchlist is perfectly fine; your failure to respond to any of my remarks was odd, in my eyes, and not co-operative. I feel I understand your viewpoint, and I hope you are making effort now to understand mine. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairieplant: Well... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I very much might raise the question on the Plot Summary of The Big Four, on its article's talk page, if I feel like I wish to voice a concern. I know didn't respond to your remarks in each article's talk page, but I would prefer to leave such pages for general discussions between groups of editors over matters regarding new information, concerns and such things, and leave personal concerns over one's edits to an editor's personal talk page. I will reply, but please do consider trying to talk to me directly, rather than through an article's talk page, okay? If a plot summary seems fine, I will leave it at that. I think a number of them now seem fine for the moment, but I may double check some just to be certain. GUtt01 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWTBAM2018titlecard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought it would be better to put the first semi finalists at the top of the page, rather than have them go in alphabetical order, and have the first semis scattered across the page.

I was only trying to help, not cause any problems. And also, I only blank my talk page, because I feel it is taking up space which isn't needed.

I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia and how to use/add articles. I only rarely use wiki, to update Super League articles.

I do not vandalise pages in any such way, and if I see what I believe is vandalism, I try to help out by reverting that edit.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this.

Much regards: L1amw90 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: I was trying to add a

page on the BGT page to try and get the citations to load, but they aren't loading for some reason. Is there something missing, what's stopping them from loading?

Regards L1amw90 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "citations" as you put it, are actually footnotes. Citations usually have reference information (i.e. Website pages, with authors, dates and publisher.) GUtt01 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know, as you reverted my edits without starting a discussion, I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen)#New performance chart. Sr88, talk. 22:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to send you a message regarding the location edits on quite a few British TV shows that I made, the reverts were September 25. I completely understand the revert, I probably went into too much detail (e.g. Greater Manchester and Salford links). Therefore I have no problem with you cutting them back.

Where I wanted to clear something up was the difference between dock10 and MediaCity. Not sure if you're aware of the setup there, but MediaCity is actually the area not the studio. Dock10 is the studio building and filming location. For example, other UK studios, such as Elstree Studios (in Borehamwood), Fountain Studios (in Wembley) are noted as the studio being the location, not the area i.e Wembley. I will therefore reinstate the links to Dock10 as it is more accurate. I could remove Manchester or Salford in those instances to clean things up a bit. My preference would be dock10, MediaCityUK.

Keep up the good work, nice to see another Wikipedian working on the neglected area of British television.FelixFLB (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GUtt01, I noticed that you a pretty good in enforcing proper plots for video game articles, including Lego DC Super-Villains. Would you be willing to check over other Lego games (oncluding the older ones) and clean up their plots. Fair to say all of them are in dire need for that. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 20:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: I will take a look when I can. I was quite specific with how I set out the plot for Lego DC Super-Villains to avoid a breakdown of scenes - we're only supposed to summarize key plot elements, not go over every element in detail. GUtt01 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank god for your minor edits. I wanted to do them, but there are a lot of editors who don't know other stuff exists. Be careful, your changes will most likely be undone. Sebastian James (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should be a bit more aware of how your plot summaries seem to work out. I know you edited what I started on Demons of the Punjab, that's fine, but notice that your sentence structure is nearly always "(some establishing phrase), (actual part of sentence)". That structure is fine once in a while, but the entire plot summary is nearly all that form. It's a type of passive writing style (I have had to deal with my own want to got that way), rather than a more active voice. It's easily fixed, either by rearranging, making the intro phrase into a short sentence, or the main sentence itself. Its just something to watch out for to make sure you don't use that structure I noted every sentence. --Masem (t) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did not mean to offend you. I'm still glad you shortened it. I've made a few more modifications to keep it as succinct as possible while still informative. I welcome any comments, suggestions...ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about blanking that message. GUtt01 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the Bible passage is here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_Fiction#Jules'_Bible_passage ZarhanFastfire (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your edits to the Grand Tour as you have made this page more informative for viewers. However, please ensure that everything is clarified and factually correct. I.e. In S01 E13, Richard Hammond pitted the Porsche 918 Spyder in a drag race against the Bugatti Veyron and later the 1900bhp Nissan Patrol. I have made this ammendment, while not changing the overall format of the article. Thank you for your contribution. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)

Thank you for your ammendment but please note that each presenter who took part in a film should be mentioned. Otherwise it appears unclear. Also Clarkson and May used their personal own hatchbacks during the Review Segment in S01 E13. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)

I've only been recently aware of this, but should Season 4 have it's total width removed. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (GMT)

Would love to solve our problem with the judges' table chart. Looking at it now, I still believe using the chair order is the way to go. I understand they originally had 3 judges and later on added a 4th judge, but I feel that using the chair order organizes the table much better, rather than just listing judges wherever based on when they joined/left the series. Also helps add a reason as to 'why X judge is in this column' (Ex: Seems weird right now trying to figure out if Mel or Heidi should be the judge in the 4th column after the N/A, easier to use the chair order to have an actual reason a judge is listed in that respective column.) I hope this can get resolved soon. Magitroopa (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: Truth be told, I think trying to arrange it like that is not relevant - the table's relevance is to who was in the program for a respective season; the chair order has little significance in this case, and in fairness there's not really any encyclopedic reason to arrange it as so, and trying to do so would be making the information relevant purely to fans of the program only. GUtt01 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again related to the show, please do not remove information from pages. On Camera Audiences is reliable and the information is correct. Magitroopa (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: I didn't dispute the information; I disputed the source. Find one that is more reliable than this. GUtt01 (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust the reliability of the source, because there is hardly little information here that shows proper confirmation about the guest judges for Season 14. It's needs to be confirmed officially by the program's production staff, through a more reliable source; On Camera Audiences can be considered questionable on reliability. GUtt01 (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just to let you know consistently reverting edits to the ratings section is not helpful. I see you referred to the upcoming eighth audition episode as false information yet you have since re-introduced the edit. I'm therefore assuming you've seen the only false information on the page was being provided by you. Please consider alternative means of resolving situations in future such as discussing on talk pages rather than engaging in edit wars, which could result in you being blocked. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Thedamneditor (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedamneditor: In response to your message, I would like to point out a few things. Reverting edits if they appear to be false without any evidence ensures that viewer are not misdirected until there is firm evidence to support the fact that the new information being introduced is officially confirmed as such. The return of the information was due to the discovery of evidence on the broadcaster's catch-up service that there will be an eighth audition episode for this series. Therefore, until I had found that to be true, it cannot be stated that I was reverting on false information - I was merely reverting on the basic lack of evidence. GUtt01 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BGT?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Confirms the acts being put on the show so I was just confirming these acts Joshua7900 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop changing the ratings for series 13 of bgt. These have always been recorded in 7 day data. If series 13 were recorded using 28 day data this would stand out from all other sereis of bgt. I'm asking you nicely now to stop. --Slindsell15 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slindsell15: Please check the article for Series 12 of BGT. The data on ratings is focused on 28 day figures provided by BARB (as can be seen here ). Quite a number of BGT series articles try to make use of these figures where available, to be accurate over total viewing figures for episodes, both from broadcast and catch-up services. GUtt01 (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know - that's some good work on The Young Ones article. It was getting a bit unwieldy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note to point out that you have now made 8 clear reversions in less than 1 hour at 2019 United Kingdom general election. You seem to have gotten into another edit-war like the one at List of The Grand Tour episodes. You can't keep doing this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend:That argument was more or less a heated dispute between you, me, and another editor which culminated in us avoiding a potential disciplinary action by going to the article's talk page. This is different. I don't know that editor's problem - like he tells I put in grammar and wording errors that needed his reversion, but why did he not clean them up instead of reverting? He has such the gall to say that, when he gave me a message (that I deleted), regarding this even though he spelt Lead as "Lede". I can't argue my case on the Edit-Warring section, because I had to ask someone to stop me jumping into discussions on there. Please can you help me? I don't know what his issue is. I mean... could you check the Lead on that article in question, and give me your opinion on it? GUtt01 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is really not that much different. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. Make more than 3 reversions in 24 hours and you violate it. At List of The Grand Tour episodes you made 6 reverts in less than 3 hours. Here it's worse because you made 8 reversions in less than one. It doesn't matter if you "know" you're right you can't revert that many times and get away with it. You really need to stop editing that article for the time being. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is another problem - the editor who I was reverting against was also involved in the Edit War, and I believe the policy on that is that if someone is nominated for edit-warring, it has to be a third party, not the person involved against them. They even sent me a message before it the EW discussion board had been updated. GUtt01 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The important point that you're missing here is that YOU have violated WP:3RR. The other editor hasn't. Anyone can open an edit-warring report. It doesn't have to be a third-party. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I don't believe I did anything wrong. He was gonna on about me not being constructive and such like. If I made grammar and wording mistakes, why didn't they just correct them? And their reasons for reverting seemed wrong. There was nothing wrong, even if I did go too far. Now the individual is saying I took down the notices once he put me up on the EW board - but I took those down assuming he was trying to harass me, before he put in that discussion. GUtt01 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the other editor did. Participating in an edit-war is a personal responsibility and you went well beyond the 4 reverts that are required to violate WP:3RR. You made 8 so you most definitely did something wrong and, in all likelihood, you're going to be blocked. Hsinghsarao did notify you 2 minutes before he compiled the report but that's really neither here nor there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: You're making things worse!!!! You can't add in those ones, because I later went to discussions on those and took points about those respective parts, which led to an agreement to change or self-revert my edits. GUtt01 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's you who has made things worse by persistently reverting. You are only "permitted" to make 3 reversions on any page in 24 hours. You have made far more than that. It doesn't matter if you have subsequently discussed matters, you can't make further reversions once you've made 3. Please read WP:3RR. As for self-reverts, of the 14 reverts that you made, you have only self-reverted twice but the point is that you shouldn't have made the reversions in the first place. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Yes, but its worse for me because I can't argue my case on the Edit War discussion board. I won't go into details about it, but you really aren't helping anyone. GUtt01 (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite blunt, you really don't have a case to argue. You lost that option after you violated 3RR. When I warned you about that you said you didn't think you'd done anything wrong when you clearly had and then, in the very same minute, you made another revert. I suggested that you stop editing the article for a while and instead you continued to make more reverts and right now you're at 12 if we take the 2 self-reverts into account. And, of course, you know about edit-warring because I warned you 12 days ago about that very thing after you violated 3RR then. This problem is all of your making. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01:Just another notice you have been reported for edit warring. Also, please note that both the spellings 'lede' and 'lead' are correct, 'lede' is the American form. Since I did not use it in the article itself, but in the edit description, it doesn't matter what form I used. Please be more understanding. Also, I had absolutely no intention of upsetting you but I now have very little choice other than reporting your conduct after you refuse to listen. Me | Talk 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsinghsarao: Can I ask if your American or British? It would help me understand if the spelling, wording and grammar mistakes you are pointing out are being defined by the American use of English. (Also, you don't need to Ping someone on their talk page - they get automatically notified of messages). GUtt01 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear from you. No, the mistakes I am pointing out have nothing to do with the variety of English used. Also, grammar is common to both varieties. I just don't understand why you would change a perfectly well-written lede for no reason at all. Further, you added info about minor parties such as the Greens, SDLP, etc. that doesn't belong in the lede. Also, the sense of the lede section deviates from neutral wording (Swinson was forced to resign, SNP gained 13 seats against Conservatives, etc.) Me | Talk 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I fail to understand why you would change a perfectly well-written section for no reason. Even though other users have removed most of the spelling errors, I suggest we return back to the original. If you wish to make minor improvements, go ahead but no point in completely rewriting it. Me | Talk 18:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsinghsarao: I was generally trying to rearrange the Lead in the following way to outline the article - General period of Election and major result occurred; Outline for Election's initiation by events leading up to it; Results for Main parties (top 4 of vote); outline of results for minor parties, mainly for Wales and Northern Ireland. In terms of neutrality, I can see the problem, and working to change that. And to be quite clear, editors may change things if in disagreement over the arrangement - the layout you put out could have been changed at a later date by another editor who felt it could look better. GUtt01 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not better. It's worse. Also, as you can see from the diffs the layout was already pretty clear

• : last election, reason for calling election & overall results
• : polls, notable individual results and seat changes overview
• : election records
• : Scotland, Wales, NI results in brief (regional)

What you turned it into was:

• : last election, overall results
• : reason for calling
• : polls, part of election records, seats changes, results for all parties and Scottish results (all thrown together)
• : Green, Welsh, NI results

1. diff Me | Talk 18:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, and when I tried to talk to you, the conversation was promptly deleted. Me | Talk 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsinghsarao::

• Reason for calling the election needs to be clearly separate
• Election records are something that can be put into the main bulk of the article, not the Lead. In addition, some of those are contestable without proper evidence (those that aren't should be brief in detail)
• The main results need to be separated from the smaller party results, particularly in NI and Wales.
• The Lead in an article is supposed to give a brief overview of the article in question. There is no evidence I am changing the "sense of the article".

GUtt01 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go from 1874 to 2017, visiting each page, you'll find that election records are always in the lede.

• e.g. However, the election ended in a close result between the two parties since February 1974, with the Conservatives making a net loss of 13 seats despite winning 42.4% of the vote (its highest share of the vote since 1983), whereas Labour made a net gain of 30 seats with 40.0% (its highest vote share since 2001, the first time the party had gained seats since 1997). from 2017 article

I could debunk each of your points, but it's futile to argue with you. You seem to have decided your innocence already. My complaint still stands that you went about reverting without discussion. Me | Talk 19:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to really separate the election records - they just need to be brief and determined as notable, and then added to the result that a party achieved in the election. GUtt01 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why are you against specifying that Labout got its lowest share of seats since 1935, when the Conservative party is described as getting its highest share since 1983 just above ?--Aréat (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the former is already stated above. If you wish it for that, you might want to move that line down to the specific spot. GUtt01 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm either dumb or tired.--Aréat (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So who won the seat, that you keep adding to the 2019 Labour results? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Go to the talk page of the article in question, and look down to the discussion. Someone puts very clearly sources that state otherwise. Whoever won the seat is not the argument. GUtt01 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we better check the table in the article & add up seats won. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thank you for deciding on the matter in hand. I figured I went too far in this, and will take my punishment as necessary. I firmly hold my hand up to getting too heated up over an editing dispute on the article that triggered this - I was trying to clean up the article's Lead to be a brief overlay and just got annoyed with constant restorations to a previous version. I think AussieLegend should have acted sooner with that dispute on list of episode article, although I can't say for certain what would have happened there, but probably the same thing as well. I'm gonna wait out this block and try and control myself - maybe take a leaf out of AussieLegend's User Page on prompting discussion rather than Edit Warring in future. GUtt01 (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: My sincere apologies for the trouble beforehand, both on that dispute earlier this month and the comments above. To be honest, I was in a panick there, and probably not thinking straight - I suppose it might have been fear of getting block making me act up there. I made a catastrophic mistake there and I gonna be left with regret on several things such as not engaging in discussion and failing to heed 3:RR. I'm gonna try my best to engage in discussion if a dispute on editing (except for vandalism and introduction of false information) occurs. I do intend to return to the General Election article in question, but only to review the Lead and determine if does what it should - act as a brief overview of the article - I'm having second thoughts on what I wrote in there, and whether it should be changed to make clear on what the article denotes, not just on the results of an election. GUtt01 (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you don't get to unilaterally interpret which content fits MOS:LEAD and which doesn't, nor does it justify you reverting others' edits multiple time without even caring to discuss the issue with them at the talk page. Typically, when there is a clear content dispute over it, you would seek consensus at the article's talk page rather than seeking to impose your will unilaterally over and over again (yes, that's exactly what edit warring is). Further, you seem to have violated the Three-revert rule by making four reverts within a 24-hour period, which is surprising because you seem to have been blocked just a few days ago precisely because of edit warring issues. Impru20^talk 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: If you wish to report me for this, please do. I checked history, and you are absolutely right - I did more than 3 reversions when I shouldn't have. I only wish I could have pointed out to him properly that his highlighting of MOS:LEAD did bring up a rather "double-edged sword" of an argument, at the moment the dispute happened (except for inaccuracies, obviously). >.-.< GUtt01 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD is not an entitlement for edit warring over a content issue. Under WP:BRD, if you make bold edits but get reverted, you should go and discuss the issue, which you obviously didn't. I reverted you to make it clear that you should be bringing the issue to the talk page if you wish to implement your changes, but instead you reverted me. Not that the other user fared better by not bringing the issue at the talk page either, but I wasn't the other user and there was no reason why you should have kept on the edit war.

As per WP:AGF I won't be reporting you, because blocks are not meant to be punitive and because I think your attempts of improving the article are sincere and your actions come as a result of a lack of comprehension of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (something you'll always get time to do). However, this doesn't preclude other users from seeing the page history and reporting you, so I'd suggest for you to bring the issue at the article's talk page to at least show you have stopped the edit warring behaviour and are willing to compromise. Impru20^talk 15:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Thank you for your words. I guess it doesn't help to get too heated up over one's efforts to truly try to improve an article. I will initiate a discussion between myself and the other. I know I already sent them a note to their user, but I will add to it about the talk page discussion I intend to make. If anyone does report me, I will accept it as a man who clearly did wrong. GUtt01 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: P.S. I'm gonna leave that article alone until the discussion has helped to ease out the dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Can I ask something here? What would happen if the other individual doesn't get involved in the discussion within a reasonable period of time (say about 48-72 hours)? Would I still need to wait for others to debate on this? GUtt01 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I guess you would be able to add your changes if a reasonable and sincere attempt to seek consensus did not succeed over a lack of response from the other involved user. However, I see that the other individual has now engaged in discussion, so it's now up to that discussion to reach a consensus on the issue. Impru20^talk 20:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Well, he's responded for now. But I gonna up that discussion to RfC to see what others, if any, think on the matter; hopefully, without complicating it. GUtt01 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I've decided to drop out of the dispute on the article's Lead. I've felt the matter is something just too complicated to deal with for now, and gonna focus on articles that I have more interest in - looking into politics this year, general elections in particular, may have been an unwise choice, in hindsight, for me. GUtt01 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious why you use gold for acts that got Dunkin' Save and navajowhite for act that advanced by the public vote. I mean the public vote is kinda more important and dominant than the Dunkin' save. Also personally I think you should include the judges' cut round in the wiki too (just my opinion btw).

AzazeltiT (Titlezaza) (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AzazeltiT (Titlezaza): Judge Cuts rounds are the same as auditions - they don't feature every participant who auditioned for that year's competition, thus to include it would require including all those whose routine was not broadcast on the season. In any case, it's excessive and unnecessary. As for the color scheme you mentioned, it's be done like that to highlight those acts within the last three places of the public vote that required a further vote on them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that in 2017 you redid a number of the plot sections of Mr. Bean episode articles, including adding titles to the acts and changing the act divisions. Do you have a source for how the episodes are divided into acts / the titles of the acts? — Smjg (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you don't already know... draft located here. Magitroopa (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: Pretty sure I'm fine as per WP:RMUM, I've moved it into mainspace. Magitroopa (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I see that you have reverted my edit on America's Got Talent. Runners-up is the plural form and not runner-ups. -Hiwilms (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwilms: Don't worry about it now, I checked it up immediately afterwards, and corrected my reversion. GUtt01 (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making a test edit for Sonic the Hedgehog. At the time, I was adding some other roles done by people we know and working to separate the other voice roles from the live-action portrayals that you removed. I just wanted to let you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: I'm afraid that isn't just what you did - you separated a paragraph in Plot that wasn't essential; and you split up a paragraph in Cast that wasn't essential, while adding in roles that need to be sourced by a credible citation (some other bits will need that as well in the future). GUtt01 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a little concerned with this edit. You've removed Chinatown Wars from the list of canon games due to lack of sourcing, but you've later stated that the game is "in a different canon" without providing a source. I hope you can see the contradiction here. I'd recommend moving the comment about canon and adding a source to the end of the sentence, like this one. You've also stated that Liberty City is based on "the four boroughs of New York City", but New York City actually has five boroughs, so the previous version was more accurate. – Rhain ☔ 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: Apart from the last part, which I have corrected, there is a problem with trying to claim that the handheld game is part of the same canon of events as GTA IV, its expansions, and GTA V - I have found no official evidence that either the production team, or Rockstar Games, set it within the same canon. I would recommend checking yourself, because unless you can find evidence to suggest that the handheld game is part of that canon, stating it as such without proper evidence is unsourced ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you can, make use of that link you gave and put that onto the sentence I created in the section; you would have been well off being WP:BOLD about this. GUtt01 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there’s no evidence stating that they’re in the same canon, but there’s also no official statements to the contrary, so when it comes to Chinatown Wars, we’re better off avoiding the topic of canon altogether. I’d add the source myself but I’m currently unable to edit the article due to the disagreements between myself and General Clanker. Once the block is over, I’ll happily add the source myself, though it probably should have been there earlier anyway. – Rhain ☔ 09:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: GAH!!! I want to change the wording around, so as to not state the obvious in the caption about the image being a promo poster, but more to state then as the line-up of judges and host for the respective season... >.-.< GUtt01 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: Apologies for my actions... Let myself get carried away. I left a question on the talk page of one of the affected articles. Please proceed with EDND on me; I'll take the punishment if it is necessary, as I don't deserve much forgiveness for behaviour. And sorry for acting rude on an editing comment, I shouldn't have written it. I just didn't know if the wording of the caption sounded right. If it pleases you, I asked an Admin if he could block me for 24 hours, in case I did something I would later regret... GUtt01 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: As further proof, I reverted back to your original version. (PS - meant to state that), and wish to discuss this some more. If that is okay with you... GUtt01 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: In your mention of Viper's questioning of the reversion to some part of his edit, I just want to make clear I wanted to generalise the information, and stipulate the production work of the Judges' Cut stage that had been finalised by production staff; the numbers for participants that had been changed, I later returned, since that was reasonable to note, and shouldn't have been removed by me. However, the detail on the quarter-finals is something I can't reasonably agree to include at present - apart from the changes in the number of quarterfinalists, the layout of the live rounds and its venue is still being debated, and such a significant production change should be written out once that information is officially confirmed (and most certainly, with a separate paragraph). GUtt01 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tangled. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To address your edit summary - "Removing CN span template - questioning why one is needed for a movie plot". That isn't a valid reason for removal. It might be a valid argument if it were used on a factual statement that anybody can verify by watching the film, but what you removed it from is not such a statement. — Smjg (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: Questioning it, on account of WP:PLOTSUM and WP:PLOTCITE - if there was no issue, my apologies; it was over a year ago and my understanding of things might have changed since then. Also, why has the plot section been recently expanded to over 800 words? I checked back to my edit (the one concerning the CN span rmv), and I swear it was just around 710 words? I checked this out with a word processor, because I noticed it had bulked up between that one and the current version of the article. GUtt01 (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you agreed to stop the war about the seasons of America's Got Talent? If so, please leave a message on the noticeboard to confirm. This might allow the report to be closed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't leave a message on the noticeboard. I have an agreement not to edit it, due to jumping into discussion on it when I shouldn't have a long while back. I'm not gonna edit war on the infoboxs on those seasons; more willing to talk about it now, but mainly to find some way of better captioning the images in the info-boxes. I think Magitroopa might want to note that three of the filed reports they linked to were later resolved or had no action taken, as recurring habit is not a comment I would agree with, in terms of these:

1. A report by a filer over reversions to an article for Watchdog (BBC programme) was later resolved, after the filer found themselves to be at fault for not understanding my reasoning on the reversions - they concerned adding in sections from the programme to another programme, Rogue Traders, after the two were merged together, when they shouldn't have (the other article was for an independent series; Rogue Traders merger to Watchdog meant it was not part of that programme).
2. A report over an article for a series of The Apprentice (British Version) never saw any action; since then the article was changed after a deletion discussion about excessive details and the layout of these articles.
3. A report over a dispute on an article for the programme Mock The Week was later resolved; I admitted fault, and an admin later used their discretion to let myself and the filer (who had failed in another manner on this matter) off with a warning.

The only report I agree to them including is the one you handled. GUtt01 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply makes no sense. It is not a promise to stop edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I'm not gonna edit-war over the infoboxes; that was the reason for the dispute. I reverted the changes back to the original layouts that the filer had, to avoid further dispute, and opened a discussion on one of the articles to talk about it/ask about it. It's not gonna be easy, but I will try to avoid further dispute; if me and the filer have a difference of opinion on an edit, I'll engage in discussion in the future. I just find it wrong for them to claim I have a habitual problem - how can an on-and-off problem of edit warring with several months in-between be habitual? Besides, at least two of the reports saw no further action, one of which was later deemed by its filer to be a mistake, because theyrealised I was trying to correct an illogical mistake on something. GUtt01 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Sorry for any confusion with initial response above. Should have been clearer. But I do stress I can't comment on reports about me on EWND, because I no editing privileges on it; an admin asked if he could remove them to help me stop being involved in other reports, which I agreed to. GUtt01 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an administrator advised you not to comment at AN3, can you link to where this was discussed? Who are you referring to when you say 'an admin'? It is strange you would not be allowed to comment on reports *about you*. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The admin was Floquenbeam, who offered to edit my javascript to help me not become involved in discussions on AN3 not involving myself. To be quite honest, you asking me about this and making me look this up in my history log has left me embarrassed to have forgotten that they said I could undo this, but I think I prefer it that way to avoid that hassle again. Might be best if I note it down, should I really need to comment on reports about me... GUtt01 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting we talked about this, but I have zero recollection about it, and I'm kind of surprised I suggested editing your javascript, as that's something I doubt I have the knowledge to do. Maybe I planned on asking one or two people who are capable of that kind of thing. How long ago was this? Are you sure it was me? Can you point me to our previous discussion? I think there might have been a misunderstanding. I apologize for my bad memory, but this just doesn't ring a bell. (hopefully it wasn't last week or something....) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible I said you shouldn't jump into other people's ANEW threads as a commenter? If so, that wouldn't apply to a thread you are actually a party to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: This was the discussion, and to let you know, I didn't know that. I assumed it was all reports including my own. I can't check now, since the last report is closed, but... I will facepalm myself if I could have, because I would feel like a complete idiot not knowing that. (That discussion was around under three years ago, to be honest) GUtt01 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is my fault, I'm sorry. Yes, 3 years ago I (and several others) were trying to keep you from jumping in to other people's ANEW reports. If my (now refreshed) memory serves, I had just been introduced to Writkeeper's javascript method of enforcing topic bans (this was before partial blocks were possible), and suggested it as a voluntary tool to prevent kibitzing. It did not occur to me that it would prevent you from participating in an ANEW thread about you. That was fairly stupid on my part. My only saving grace is that I made it really clear at the time that this was voluntary. @EdJohnston:, it sounds too dumb to be true, but yes, I (inadvertently) prevented him from editing ANEW threads even when they're about him. GUtt01, I see above you want to keep the javascript in place, but I suggest removing it in case this comes up again. Surely you've broken the habit after 3 years? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Well... at least I know I was right about this and did not have the means to comment. I'll keep it up, and drop it down ONLY if I gotta comment on reports I'm involved in (either as filer or reported). GUtt01 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, I'm an even bigger dolt than I thought. I just realized you can edit User:GUtt01/common.js yourself! No need to ask an interface admin (normal admin's can't even do it now in other people's user space) if you ever need to edit ANEW; you can just blank that page, purge, and you can access ANEW again. I'm not entirely sure I thought of this at the time, but I think maybe that's the story I'm going to stick to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: As the saying goes "Hindsight is a wonderful thing". I guess we all learn new lessons as we continue to grow in this world; after all, everyone makes mistakes or overlook things. No shame in it. GUtt01 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for figuring this out. I agree it would be best if GUtt01 undoes the script so that he is free to respond to AN3 reports that involve him. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GUtt01. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sweep (puppet), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently remove my edit about Brian Hull on his page and BGT series 10 due it being poorly written out and possibly not neutral in viewpoint, could u help reword it Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanoflionking: Unlikely, because even if reworded, the information that you put forward is not controversial at all. It seems more focused on comments made by the performer themselves; the only element is a mention of an accusation, and that has no citation supporting it, as those given don't state anything of the sort to back it up (they focus on the other performer on trivial things). The controversy section of Britain's Got Talent is focused on controversies surrounding the programme itself, not on individual controversies in a series; and even in Series 10, that information was just the same thing. Also, I believe I have not edited the performers article - that was someone else.GUtt01 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if the conclusion to the discussion was to keep the templates, why remove them from the pages anyway? If it was only meant to live on one page, the tempates would have been deleted and it would have been made into a single table like on the Legend of Zelda series page. It's also not undue weight, because both Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear are highly serialized stories with plenty of independent third party coverage in reputable sources about their plots and how they link together (hence why the templates were kept in the first place), so the plot sections are exactly where the chronology template makes the most sense to be, as that's where that information is most relevant. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberlink420: Why is it essential to include such a template on articles covering every entry in a series? Why can the events of a game not be defined in a "Settings" sub-section of a plot, detailing when it occurs? For editors not to actually think about this, it is rather careless. Even if the series, Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear, have third party coverage from reliable sources, the template doesn't have justification to be used repeatedly in each plot section for each entry in their series. If you wish to define when in a series' universe that events occur, there is no need for a template like this:

1. To define when it occurs in the series, it should be written out in the article for each entry, under a Settings section, defining when it occurs. For example: "Metal Gear 3 is set in the 1960's, two decades before the events of Metal Gear".
2. On the main article for the series' itself, the chronology, even when defining the plot, needs to be done in an encyclopaedic manner. You can't just write out the plot itself - readers need to know clearly why the producers, the writers, the developers, or a combination of these groups, decided on how the chronology was set out in the series' fictional universe.#
3. The template itself acts as a navbox, something that is already present on these articles. Users can easily navigate between the articles for that series, without needing this.
4. The template appears to be pure WP:FANCRUFT - such a thing would be acceptable on a fandom wiki for the series, but not on Wikipedia: even if chronology of events needs to be explained to the readers, templates like this are not the right thing to explain the matter. And such sources would be best used in plots for backing up writings and settings for each entry, not for this template.

GUtt01 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about WP:FANCRUFT, but if you look at the discussion from TFD as to why the templates for Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear, and Kingdom Hearts were kept, it's because those three game franchises each have a lengthy interconnected plot split across multiple entries released over the course of two or three decades. As such, while the templates duplicate the function of a conventional navbox, it does so in a way that informs where each individual game fits into the broader story of the series.

More importantly, your edits from the past week to articles that use one of the three templates are being reverted by at least three other editors (plus at least one IP editor.) Even though this doesn't breach 3RR, this could be considered an edit war, so you should discuss this on a talk page with other editors instead of trying to communicate through edit summaries. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Musashi1600: I would, but I'm very concerned that they wouldn't listen to me. I also pointed out to them that while the deletion discussion was over whether to keep or delete the template, it doesn't stipulate if the template should remain on those articles or not. I believe they believe that is the case, which it is not. GUtt01 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the people who reasoned for KEEP on those discussions possibly overlooked a few things, as I stated above in my four reasons. GUtt01 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that even though there was no discussion specifically as to how widely the templates should be used, these templates were already being included on the articles for each entry in their respective franchises, and some of the points raised in the TFD discussion address why they were being used like that:

1. From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. (From the FF7 discussion, emphasis added)
2. Plot/narrative order is a big component of the Kingdom Hearts series, and each of the titles are sourced within the various articles to support this order. And as the plot of this series can be a bit confusing, for both new and experienced players of the series, this simple template is a helpful aid on the relevant game articles. ... (From the KH discussion)
3. Metal Gear (and Metal Gear Solid) is a franchise notable for its complicated plot, spanning several games non-linearly. It is, for example, featured first in this article about complicated video game storylines. This chronology helps illustrate that fact and contrast it to the real-world release timeline of the games as a relevant facet of the work. (From the MGS discussion, external link removed)

As the editor who wants to change the status quo of these articles, you should be initiating a discussion on removing these templates regardless of what you think the other editors might do. You also have other options for finding out what direction the community at large wants to take (like opening a request for comment); if there's a clear consensus that the templates should go, and the other editors keep reverting them, then you can take it up with ANI/AN3. Furthermore, the fact that you're removing these templates after speaking in favor of deleting them at TFD is a bad look at best, and retaliatory editing at worst, which is why it's all the more important to have a discussion before continuing to remove these templates. (See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) Musashi1600 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Musashi1600: I'll try a RfC on the matter, since it's likely that the Deletion discussion was ended too soon by its nominator. GUtt01 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Millionaire article include slight variations for visually impaired contestants, such as in Fastest Finger First? Visokor (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visokor: Only a brief mention that helping aids are given to contestants who suffer from visual impairments. GUtt01 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the 'Contest overview' was never ordered up until now... just tried myself and I believe it's all fixed now. Unsure if there's anything else similar on the article that needs fixing/ordering. Magitroopa (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: - There was one thing needed fixing up: the sort function for one of the preliminary tables, which I've already taken care of. Other than that, about the same as you, as I don't see anything else that needs fixing up on the article.GUtt01 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GUtt01, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jack Pack (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Thanks for response, although I doubt that one was a new page. XD Anyway, I mentioned in tagging it that I deemed it possibly promotional, but I was uncertain despite reading the criteria for that type of Speedy Del. Anyway, I might raise that up for a possible discussion, since the link to that article from its respective Britain's Got Talent related article appears to be like an easter egg - I pointed out in my summary that the link from there would imply readers were learning about the group who participated, not about their debut album. GUtt01 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved by an experienced editor, David Gerard (talk · contribs · count), and I'm quite sure that he didn't intend anything improper. The album charted, so it's notable. Perhaps someone will be able to write a useful article about the band, now that there is one about its first album. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Hopefully. It would be wisest, since its quite unclear why anyone would link a name to an article, which may be related, even relevant, but not contain the information a reader might be expecting to find pertaining to a biography of a person, group, or organization.GUtt01 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the rationale was that the album had charted so would be, prima facie, notable - sorry if the link to it ended up being a bit mystery-meat in practice - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: To be fair, that's understandable, since I was not certain about it. But it is strange that the link for the article from the BGT one, doesn't go towards the group but to the album of the same name. I think either the article needs a remake to focus on the group itself, or a separate article is made for the group - either one might be best, otherwise someone might consider that link to be an unacceptable easter egg-like promo. GUtt01 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BBC Top Gear (2002) Presenters, 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:TopGearPolarSpecialVehicles.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TopGearPolarSpecialGnT.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WeHappyFewUncleJack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]