This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Slightly belated, but welcome! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved J Pop SPEED to SPEED (J-Pop) to keep some sort of consistency — most articles in Category:Japanese musical groups have "(J-Pop)" attached, not "(band)". After doing so, I changed every link that pointed to J Pop SPEED to the new location. Now that you have moved the article again, can you please also update all links to it? Thanks. Rl 06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• it is Wikipedia Naming Convention to suffix them with (band). If the other J-Pop bands have (J-Pop) after them, then they are wrong as well. Changing the links is only necessary in the case of double redirects, since moving an article automatically creates a redirect. Jdcooper 16:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The edits you've done on Mr Big (UK Band) seem to be a direct copy of http://home.no.net/mott/mrbigbio.html, do you have permission to reproduce this here? Djbrianuk 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied here, on my talk or on the article talk page, I've reverted your contributions. If you wish to discuss this further, please leave a note on my talk page. --Djbrianuk 10:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Alphax ^τεχ 14:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the link for Navaho to Navaho Nations on the Star Trek page for "The Paradise Syndrome", and made a dead link. Are you updating the Navaho page or something? Cyberia23 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed now, my bad. Jdcooper 19:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed Category:1987 births from your user page because user pages do not belong in categories for articles. However you could put yourself in something like Category:Millennial Wikipedians. JobE6 14:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. Your revert went to a bad version and me reverting you went to another bad version. Somebody else beat me to finding a clean version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• No worries, thats happening a lot on that page, fucking trolls... Jdcooper 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted the merge you did, as it seemed to be against the consensus about the merge proposal. See Talk:Alice. -- SCZenz 01:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi!! I noticed your merge. I did the same thing a few days ago but Gurubrahma asked me to revert my merge because he put a discussion deadline of November 222005 on the discussion page. I guess he might talk to you soon too :-/ —Gniw (Wing) 16:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed this talk from your user page that should have been posted here. Alf ^melmac 13:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

<from my talk page>

Hi, i noticed you reverted the addition of the "Vegans" category to 'Melanie Blatt'. Just out of interest (maybe to improve my knowledge of WP policy), howcome you removed it? Jdcooper 12:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because this editor has a history of adding that category to articles it can not be verifiably said that the article should be in - see [1], [2],

[3], [4]. He's been repeatedly told about this on various talk pages, and refuses to stop, so at the moment I revert on sight whenever I see this bloke add "vegans" to a person, even though it might be true (because previous evidence indicates it's not). Sam Vimes 12:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What does this one think of the movement? --Kin Khan 02:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed here that you decided to call this "the worse article..." etc. I understand now why it is being deleted, I at first thought this would be a presentable article as several other List of People type article are present on this website. Saying that his work wasn't worthwhile or whatever is rude in my opinion. The creator of this article apparently worked thoroughly and tried to present, what I still believe, is excellent work on the encyclopedia. Please be more careful with your words in the future, what happens if he decides not to come back because he believes what you are saying represents a holistic opinion of the Wikipedia community? Basically: insulting someone's work, not a good idea. Please, please be more careful with your words. I hope he was not offended. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't remove that paragraph myself, but I concur with the anonymous editor's choice. --Dystopos 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately (as far as I am aware) categories cannot be moved in the same way as regular articles. What I did to the 'Music from Sheffield, England' category was to click the edit tab, select all, and copy it. I then started the new category 'Music from Sheffield' and pasted the contents into it. Having done that I went to every article in the 'Music from Sheffield, England' (I was fortunate because at that time there weren't very many) and edited them to point at the new category instead of the old one. Finally I went back to editing the 'Music from Sheffield, England' category and replaced the contents with #REDIRECT [[Music from Sheffield]]

I hope that that helps you. If you need any more information just let me know. JeremyA 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have revised your edit as the correct name of the band is, in fact, 'The Real People', not 'Real People' Jud 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indexing in categories is done discounting "the", it will still show up in the category list as "The Real People" i promise.. Jdcooper 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Thanks for the explanation. Jud 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

hey. why did u redirect my article to toilet paper. many brits would not type in toilet paper because loo-roll is used in most british dialects.

the moomin

• Hey moomin, that's exactly why we use redirects. Toilet paper and loo roll are the same thing, dont you agree? So they should have the same article, so we make it so that typing in either thing gets to the same article. Jdcooper 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• i agree but most brits wont find it useful. we have different names and brands in britain. we should not redirect it. also, it gets directed to toilet paper which is a blank page.
  • Sure they'll find it useful! If there are differences between British and American toilet paper brands, add a section on Toilet paper (not a blank page!) about the differences, that would be pretty interesting. The two topics are not distinct enough, in my opinion, to warrant separate pages. Aside from the fact that I live in London, and everyone I know calls it Toilet Paper, its the same entity. Jdcooper 15:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• its pretty bizzarre that we are having a discussion on the difference between ameerican and british toilet paper.
• oh and i am from the north so we would call it different things. strange how a few miles means the difference between dialects.
  • Hehe, indeed so. Still use the same toilet paper tho, im willing to place good money on it ;-) Jdcooper 02:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • che che che charmin :)

Hello, I deleted the merge notice for this article. I created the page "QzDaddy/Sandbox/Booker T. Washington" accidentally, and have place it for a speedy deletion. Thanks. | QzDaddy 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You recategorised Ultravox as an English band rather than a British one. To avoid edit warring on this can you explain your reasons, given that Ure's voice is so endemically linked with the band and given that Ure is of course Scottish, why you believe they should be categorised as English? Do you not agree that their most notable incarnation is composed of members from differing constituent parts of the United Kingdom and that it can therefore be considered point of view to describe them as anything other than British? Steve block talk 17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The infobox in the Ultravox (band) article states that they are from London. I was trying to corroborate the information in the infobox with their categorisation. Feel free to revert my edits, as long as the final result is consistent with itself. Jdcooper 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play, but I guess what I am driving at is, given that Ure is so noticeably Scottish, it seems odd to categorise the band as English even if they formed in England. Do you agree with that line of thinking? Steve block talk 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I do agree, I would support changing it back, in retrospect, but the infobox should be changed as well. In general however, I think if the whole of a band is English except for one Scottish member, the band could be happily classed as English. Ure would be an exception, true, seeing as, as you say, he was so endemically linked with the band's image. Jdcooper 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough that seems as good a compromise as any. I've amended the info box to list their origin as London, England but their country as United Kingdom, which still seems somewhat contrary but has the feel of accuracy. I hope you agree. Steve block talk 13:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jdcooper,

You marked a page in my userspace as redundant and redirected to the same page in the main namespace. It appears I broke some Wikipedia rule, but I'm too new to recognize what it is. Could you help me understand what I did wrong?Jason Richards 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Hiyya54

• I didn't realise it was serving a purpose, it appeared on the Newpages list as virtually a duplicate of Ann Davies, so I redirected it, apologies if you were using it for something. If you still need it for something, then create it with a note at the top to tell people to leave it alone, otherwise it will still look like a duplicate. If you just want to edit the article, Be Bold! and do it on the article itself. Jdcooper 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Will do Jason Richards 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish to thank you for the compliment. It is always nice to see hard work being noticed by fellow wikipedians. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish to thank you for the Barnstar award. It is my second award and this will motivate me to write even more articles about football clubs. Secondly, I hope that all the soccer fans out there will contribute more articles about non-league clubs and the less known football clubs. It is my desire to see Wikipedia containing information on ALL the soccer clubs and teams in this world! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. It claims he's an actor and IMDB confirms it, but he's only got one movie credit there, so I sent it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen you make a few good edits on Campus 14. A similar (albeit of a lower quality) article, Otley Run, is up for deletion and it has been suggested that the prinicple should be extended to the Campus 14 article. I thought I would mention this so you could comment on the relevant articles for deletion page should you wish. Regards, Jamse 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and suggestion on removing the articles tagged for 'Move to Wiktionary.' Your explanation certainly makes sense and I had not thought of the things you said. However, I have a question/suggestion. An article that is tagged for AfD could potentially get kept. So just tagging an article AfD does not get the Dead End page off the list either. The Dead End Pages page suggests tagging an AfD tagged page with a Wikify tag so that if the page gets kept it is at least categorized else where; hence, the page can be removed from the Dead End Pages list. Could we not use the same routine for the Move to Wiktionary pages?

Thanks again for your comments!

James084 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For cricketers from Muslim countries like Pakistan, the convention is to list their name in the first_name - surname order. For instance, see a standard source like this. Hence players like Aamer Sohail should be listed that way instead of Sohail,Aamer. Re. Abid Ali, even though he is an Indian cricketer, his name is conventionally *not* listed as Ali, Abid (see [5]). If you agree, I'll revert the your changes to the cricketer pages. Tintin (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it is this way except that it is the 'convention' followed by Wisden, Cricinfo and the rest. Infact, someone recently raised a question in WP:Cricket about whether there are any Wikipedia guidelines for this. No replies yet. Tintin (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to join the free-for-all here :-) Tintin (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. There were claims of notability (oft-quoted author) so I sent it to AfD instead. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cullen Hightower. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked your IP. By now you should have found out that it wasn't a block of you specifically, but yes, of your IP. I did not notice it was a school's IP, but as of that point, every edit from that address for the past day had been a vandalism. In the future, I will check better (and make my blocks appropriately more proportional), and I sincerely apologize for getting you caught up in it. --Golbez 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the barnstar - it's nice to be appreciated! Rich Farmbrough. 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the article as per your nomination on WP:AID, and did a bit of copyediting (though I don't believe my edits were particularly great) and to be honest the article seems ok to me. What specifically do you think should be expanded/added? Obviously there is general improvement that could be done (when isn't there!) but I think there are far more needy topics listed at that page. Try listing it for Peer Review if you're worried about it? Great work on the article by the way! Jdcooper 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, they were good, and read a lot better than mine - prose writing skills aren't my strong point! Things that I'd like to add is the background to the systems, as I think it's done by the same people that will do the ID cards, and more on what they do (getting money through) as at the moment, it's a little light on that, which weighs it towards the critisms. On hindsight, AID, proably wasn't the best place to put it, as it's a very narrow subject. I might mention it on the UK board to see if anyone's interested, but other than that, I'll keep plugging along (must expand the to do list for a start!) Thanks for the feedback, btw, it makes a big difference when editing to get postive comments! MartinRe 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeated from my talk page: Wow! That's high praise. I'll do my best to continuously live up to this. Thank's very much! -- JLaTondre 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you remember where you sourced his birthdate from? There's an interview with Kevin where he states he met Colm when they were 15 and 12 respectively, something the dates of birth we list for them don't allow. Steve block talk 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"how is Eton not leading?! That is not POV, its a statement of fact"

Define "leading". Leading what? How is that a statement of fact? If I were to write "St. Michaels Comprehensive, Dartmouth, a leading English school", how could this be verified or falsified? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying for a neutral point of view. Cheers, Sliggy 15:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC) PS. (Eton being "revered" could well be even worse: now the school is being deified...).

Hey there. I changed the PROD tag on this article to an AfD tag. I don't think it belongs here, either, but it's already been deleted via PROD once. Since it was recreated, it's assumed that someone disagreed with the deletion, so we have to go through the longer process. Joyous | Talk 19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.