This is an archive of past discussions with User:JohnGormleyJG. 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.
You do not seem to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Don't add stuff that's going to be inaccurate real soon, like air times and recent air dates. If you're going to add broadcast information, do it in such a way that it remains accurate in the long run and is relevant to the reader. People do not go look up Irish air times for this week's episode of The King of Queens on Wikipedia, so this is not relevant. --Atlan (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Infobox image sizes
Please stop setting infobox image sizes to 300px. Lead images should not be set to greater than 300px but when set to 300px they cause the infobox to exceed the 300px limit. This is why we normally set infonbox images to 220-275px. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC
How do I give these TV shows that function I think shows such as 24 should have it. User:JohnGormleyJG
As I've stated above, you need to gain consensus at Template talk:Infobox television/colour. You could also try discussing it at WT:TV but the consensus is that only very, very limited number of TV series can use colour and those series are generally only exempted from the consensus because they've used consistent colouring for a long time. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
24 character articles
Hi there, I'd really like to stop having to revert your edits on those 24 characters articles, but you keep undoing my edits, and it seems you have yet to read the Wikipedia guideline, WP:JUSTPLOT (plot-only summaries of fictional works), which is what Wikipedia is not. This is why outside wikis like the the 24 Wikia exists, to house this type of "in-universe" information. But, this is Wikipedia, articles need to have notable real-world information for them to exist. Unless you plan on expanding each of these articles beyond a plot summary (casting of the actor, writing and development of character, reception to character, etc.) and beyond what is already in the 24: Live Another Day article, then there is no reason for these articles to exist. I hope you understand. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I posted the message on your talk page before I read this and is there any way we can get a seperate article for these characters without an editing war. I was trying to make this season the same as the others and other users can add in information regarding critical reception and casting afterwards I was just starting off these pages aware more info will be added and I feel there is no need to just undo all that useful information. Thank You JohnGormleyJG (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG
This is both a response your comments here and on my talk page. I wouldn't call that information "useful", it's plot information about a fictional character (also, characters who have appeared in roughly a dozen TV episodes, not all that notable). Again, this is why 24 wikia exists. In respond to your comment, "If there's any extra information regarding critical reception, casting etc.you wish to include to make this a plausible article feel free to do so." That's not "extra" information, that's what should be the focus of the article, the real-world information. The burden isn't on me to add this information, as you're the one who wants them created. If you want them to exist, then they must be done properly and not just contain a plot summary. The article for Kate Morgan existed for over 3 months, but no real-world information was added in that time. The articles need to contain substantial real-world information (along with several references establishing notability, not just a link to a blog website like 24spoilers.com for example) enough to justify a standalone article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Almost all the characters that have their own article do NOT include real world information take for example Milo seasons 1 and 6 all information is just plot summary this is wit most of the characters and I presumed it should be with the characters from LAD thank you JohnGormleyJG (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG
Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Not the best rationale to create these article. Rules and guidelines regarding these types of articles have become stricter over the years, we shouldn't continue piling onto the list of plot-only articles that are against Wikipedia's guidelines. What's been stated isn't my opinion, it's a Wikipedia guideline. Respect that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing that up should we leave those older articles from past seasons alone or redirect them also. Thank you JohnGormleyJG (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG
Thanks for understanding. As for the other issue, that's a pretty big thing, to redirect over a dozens articles that have been in place for years. That's not a unique issue to 24, there's several TV series' with characters articles or other related articles that could and should be redirected due to the plot-only nature of them, but that's something that should be handled by several editors after discussing the issues. I simply redirected these because they were newer, and I just wanted to stop the continued creation of these types of "plot-only" articles that would eventually probably just get redirected or get tagged with various Wikipedia clean-up tags, like Kim Bauer. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Four Rooms episodes, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As I indicated in my edit summary, the source used is not a verified Twitter account, so it does not constitute a reliable source and therefore cannot be used as a reference.AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a dealer from the shows real Twitter. He would know when the show is returning unless you have information that this is false the edit stays.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG
As I have indicated above, the fact that the source is not a verified Twitter account means that it is not considered to be a reliable source and therefore cannot be used as a reference. Only verified Twitter accounts can be used as sources. Note that edit-warring over this is inappropriate and could lead to a block. Bold declarations like "the edit stays" demonstrates an assertion of ownership over the article and is similarly inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit-warring warning
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of Four Rooms episodes. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
Please note that you have already made 3 reverts in the past 7 hours, so you are at 3RR now. Another revert will result in a 3RR breach.AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:How I Met Your Mother The Whole Story Seasons 1-9 DVD.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:How I Met Your Mother The Whole Story Seasons 1-9 DVD.jpg. 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).
Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Four Rooms episodes, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As I indicated in my edit summary, the source used is not a verified Twitter account, so it does not constitute a reliable source and therefore cannot be used as a reference.AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a dealer from the shows real Twitter. He would know when the show is returning unless you have information that this is false the edit stays.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG
As I have indicated above, the fact that the source is not a verified Twitter account means that it is not considered to be a reliable source and therefore cannot be used as a reference. Only verified Twitter accounts can be used as sources. Note that edit-warring over this is inappropriate and could lead to a block. Bold declarations like "the edit stays" demonstrates an assertion of ownership over the article and is similarly inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit-warring warning
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of Four Rooms episodes. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
Please note that you have already made 3 reverts in the past 7 hours, so you are at 3RR now. Another revert will result in a 3RR breach.AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:How I Met Your Mother The Whole Story Seasons 1-9 DVD.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:How I Met Your Mother The Whole Story Seasons 1-9 DVD.jpg. 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).
As I explained here at the beginning of July,[1] only certain TV series are permitted to use other than the default infobox colours. The Simpsons is one of the fifteen permitted programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary, it makes no difference if nobody objected. The parameters have been deprecated for years and should not be used, per consensus. They no longer even exist in {{Infobox television}} so adding them serves no purpose, as they don't do anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Admin Help
Helped
<Dear Admin
I am inquiring where is it possible for myself to become an admin I am aware there is a request form but am not sure where to find it.
Thanks for your help
JohnGormleyJG (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)>
Help Me
Helped
Dear User I am inquiring where is it possible for myself to become an admin I am aware there is a request form but am not sure where to find it. Thanks for your help
JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi JohnGormleyJG, I'd like to make some comments regarding this edit: section titles should not be bolded or contain links per the Manual of Style (MOS:BOLD, MOS:HEADINGS), the bios of the people listed are copied directly from the source which is a copyright violation, and the references being used are bare references (just the url). Please look at Template:Cite web as to how to fully fill out a citation. Hopefully you find my comment helpful, and not annoying. Just let me know. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and sorry I was unaware that headings could not be bloded. Would you like me to undo that edit. Thanks again for the help. This way I can improve as an editor. :)JohnGormleyJG (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, section and subsection titles are automatically bolded, so it's unnecessary. Also remove the wikilinks, instead wikilink their names below. The addition seems redundant of the above section titled "Dealers", so maybe merge the content together. And "Current" is not a good section title, as it's unclear of what it's referring to. Also, please be aware of WP:COPYVIO, this is very important. But yes, I would make changes to correct the errors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I would like you opinion on this situation. This article Good Morning Britain presenters and reporters there use to be a table layout used for this which you can see in the past revisions but has been changed to a list. All other news reporters such as ITV News uses a table. What is your take on this. I also mentioned it in the talk page of the article. Thank You JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Tables vs. lists, it's all down to preference. It's just a different way of displaying the same information. It should be noted that just because tables look "fancier" or are able to use colour is not a good rationale for their use. It should be based on practicality and if the information is better served in a table format. So it's down to editor consensus, see what the others think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Final ratings
The ratings you provided for the series finale of Two and a Half Men are not the final ratings but the preliminary ratings. Preliminary ratings are almost never accurate and are almost always adjusted when the preliminary ratings are released. Preliminary ratings are usually published around 9:30 am PT, while final ratings are usually released by mid-afternoon. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Arthur & George (TV Series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation14:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: The dress
Any website can put up a poll. But that does not mean that an otherwise unremarkable poll needs to be specifically singled out with that much weight placed on it in the presentation. The BuzzFeed poll is notable primarily because it was BuzzFeed that helped further spread awareness of this phenomenon, but it also does not need to be weighted so heavily in the presentation. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not constructive, and doesn't make sense. I made two HIMYM user boxes: one with a Barney quote ("This user is legend- wait for it- dary!") and an alternate one in reference to Ted ("This user is looking for the one"). Adding True Story to that doesn't make sense. I don't want to violate 3RR, so please revert your edit. Rusted AutoParts22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just to ask why shouldn't we include +1 in the ratings for gogglebox as they do make quite a difference! Most other shows use +1 information on wikipedia, why not this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simkinsjohn1 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Simkinsjohn1 thanks for comment, + 1 is only included if there is a grid specific for ratings such as on Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway#Ratings there is also HD and share% included in that. With the Gogglebox episodes it is mainly based on the episodes and has the key features air date/episode number/viewers and BARB only source standard Channel 4. Plus standard gets higher priority over +1 included and if we were to include all this information the page would be too crowded. Thank You JohnGormleyJG (✉) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! SwarmX00:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Lakerfan45, first of all I am not an admin myself it takes a lot of work to become one. I would recommend trying to become a rollback or a reviewer first to build up to becoming a admin. For rollback rights request form click HERE and for becoming a reviewer click HERE. Also I would recommend you create your user page, you can do that by simply clicking on your username in red at the top right hand corner. Check out my userpage if you need help or want a few tips. Thank You JohnGormleyJG (✉) 07:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Better Call Saul Episode 3 Title Card.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Better Call Saul Episode 3 Title Card.jpg. 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).
It's not an WP:OWN issue in the slightest. The Infobox itself already contains a quote from the show, it doesn't need another one. If you want an Infobox with "True Story" in it, then ill make one if you want. Rusted AutoParts20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Name Is Earl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Garcia. 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.
Hey JohnGormleyJG, just a reminder, when you remove the DVD info from the infoboxes, sometimes you're deleting references that are later used in the article, thus causing a cite error (examples: [2][3]). I'd move the references (if needed) instead of just straight-up deleting them. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi thanks for letting me know that. I was just doing it quite quickly to get through the seasons and didn't notice that. I will go back and try fix them thanks again. JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ITV NEWS LOGO.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:ITV NEWS LOGO.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).
Hello. Could you help with a couple of I.P.s on WVEE & WPGC-FM? They keep reverting my edits of removing non-notable people. I believe it is the same person; I have given them an explanation here. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan21:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just looked over that and you are definitely right acc. to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. I gave them a final edit warn. I also noticed they had gotten several edit wars in the past. If they continue to revert they will likely get blocked. What they are saying is too trivia which is against WP:IINFO. I added those pages to my watchlist and I am keeping a eye on them, so I will be checking the reverts. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That was not their first warning, they were edit warned MANY times in the past and in the edit summary. Do you expect me just to give the first level warning for each page they disrupt. As of overreacting I think saying "Do not threaten me. Posting threats on the internet can be considered a federal crime" is overreacting. They do not own Wikipedia and cannot have it they way they choose. When given policy based reasons they need to comply with that or discuss if they still believe they are right. These were edit warnings not threats -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should reread what I wrote: I simply explained what might have caused their overreactions. Your responses have been 100% correct and I am not in disagreement; the user using 65.82.136.2 is apparently delusional. --SpyMagician (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh I apologies, English is not my strong point. I am more a Maths and Physics person. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
DL destinations at Atlanta Airport
All the international destinations listed require multiple stops at DL hubs (also Delta does not even serve Melbourne, Australia). 97.85.113.113 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey I was unaware you were reverting something else. When I was reviewing the pending change I saw it was unrefferenced, I don't know much about flights myself so I am aware I could have made a mistake. I was just checking for vandalism -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 08:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
After looking at your archives, it seems all will fit easily in one archive page so I've taken the liberty of consolidating everything into one archive for you and tweaked the setup accordingly. As a result, archives 2 & 3 are now empty. All should work OK now but if you want me to revert, let me know. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the data and information I add to the english wiki of football club SD Compostela. Why did you delete it? I only added the last season information. I did not delete anything.
Hey, @RSQ25: I am not quite sure what you are referring too. As I have been quite busy editing recently. Normally if I remove something it is because it is not properly sourced or does not fit the Wikipedia Guidelines. If you believe you gave a reliable source and did think I made a mistake then I apologise. Do you mind linking me to this edit you are referring too? Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Gino Polli
Hello John, it is not so, I removed the notification, because as you see have been added integrations with the references required. I therefore should eliminate related note, thank you.Obviously, what has been reported in the talk page.I would ask you, please, then to remove the note on the data are very clear. thanks again.
I edited the page to reflect his move to Brighton and Hove Albion. The only information I removed was the line 'Thus far, his ability to procure and nurture inexperienced talent, together with innovative training methods and analytical research have seen him described as one of the best young coaches in the game.'
The page is now back to a version that says he is coach at charlton. This is incorrect. If you could revert it to the page I created (with the addition of that line) that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.129.65 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Ill check that out. I was using Huggle, to revert vandalism/content not containing reliable sources. I apologise if I made a mistake. I will recheck over that for you now and get back to you. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just looked over that and noticed you made some vast changes and did not include refferences. By all means you can restore that version but please include some references for verification. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance, I hope the page is to the correct standard now (it certainly looks like many footballer profiles I have read before). Ben Roberts (footballer). I think the previous creator of the page must have been a Middlesbrough fan haha! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.129.65 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You made a mistake in calculating Cyprus's point difference. They ended the group stage with +50 point difference, but you put down that they scored 93 and conceded 37 or 38, which would give them a different point difference. They had +50, and it went down to who got more points (had they been level on small points they still would have gone through as Ukraine had more yellow cards).
Sorry for not mmentioning the changes properly, I was sure I commented those changes.
Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:
This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.
Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.
Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.
The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.
It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.
Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!
If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.
After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
I'm unclear what information you believe to be incorrect, or what is wrong with the citations I provided:
Tensions in London ran even higher with the approach of 23 April St George's Day in England -- the Friday preceding the bombing -- due also in part to three previous IRA-related bombings in England that year: the two Warrington bomb attacks on 20 March and a bomb attack outside of Harrods on 28 January.[1] Although another bombing attack in London was not unexpected with threats "every night, virtually", the location so close to the Baltic Exchange bombing was.[2]
Hello,
I would like you to please reverse your quick fail of the nomination. Firstly, it is not uncommon for articles to be given time to address any issues. Secondly, you are mistaken on a few of your assessments. It is not necessary to have references in the lead or a syopsis. The lead summarizes the entire article and therefore all references are in the body of the article. Honestly, I would just like a second opinion. You may notice that it already passed a "Did you know..." review and the issues that you brought up were not mentioned.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see that the FAC was opened (so I removed it - I added here removed the last bit about contribs to the article, I saw your changes to the article just now). If it does go ahead, please let me know - I'm not sure it's within the spirit of the process to nominate and take credit for an article you've only made a few changes to - it's largely unchanged from when it became a good article when I got it to this version ([4]). I don't mean to be OWNy, but I worked rather hard on the article (I'm the top contributor to it) so just want to ensure credit is shared fairly. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A vandal-warning by you has been used in a Phabricator-task
In trying to get use to the code structuring I sent in 5 revisions, so I want to apologize for that. Is there a way I can find out why my edit was rejected, and how to get my change approved?
Hello @Angelasteph: the reference you included was removing a previous one put in by another user. Deadline is a more well known and established company than telltales. We generally try to keep the references by a more reliable source to be sure the facts are correct. Thankyou. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 18:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rm1911: It just means your page got patrolled. You can mark a new page as patrolled if you scroll down to the bottom and mark it. However you cannot mark pages you created. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 09:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks, so i can use the AUTOPATROL template on my user page? (the little green sign on the top-right)--Rm1911 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Tunisian Arabic
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic has been nominated for Wikipedia GA Status. However, no one has reviewed it. So, please review it soon.
@Csisc: Hey, the article you mentioned is not the style of articles I review. I normally review articles that I have some knowledge on how the article should be. For me it is Television/Film. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good Morning britain Presenters
John GormleyJG : Stapleton first appeared on 13 May 2014, so he should be at top, whilst Garraway first appeared on 15 May and Singh first appeared on 16 May, Fletcher first appeared as a newsreader on 16 February 2015. Garraway no longer is a newsreader and Singh is no longer an anchor, this was only while Hawkins was away, but Garraway is currently acting anchor. Bob N1C2 - 12.42 - 30/07/2015 Bob N1C2 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not based off when they appear. It is based off where they are credited. I dont mean to sound rude but the way I had it listed is the correct way and how it should be done. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 11:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean alphabetical or most appearances, also should Emmerdale Week be mentioned on Good Morning Britain presenters page or not, Kevin Hughes and Laura Tobin will be there, should Hughes be added to guest presenters/reporters list and Paul Brand is still appearing aswell. Bob N1C2 (talk) "'" 15.28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.
The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.
After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.
Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.
16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Please refrain from adding "related" programmes in the infobox of this and other ITV News bulletin articles - these other programmes are linked and readily available in the ITV News template. Infoboxes should be clean and concise rather than waffly. LBMtalk to me20:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@LBM: The template is not officially part of the article, it is an addition. All related shows (remakes, spin-offs and adaptions) should be included in the infobox, The presenters are listed in both as should the related shows be. Thankyou
By that logic, the infobox isn't "officially" part of an article either. Please don't create excuses for adding trivial details - there are no remakes, spin-offs or 'adaptions' of news bulletins. See WP:MISC - LBMtalk to me21:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is actually part of the article. The template is a template on its own article and can be added to any article. Also a lot of people don't look at the templates they just look at the infobox and I can't see a valid reason as to why this should not be included. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 21:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a generally accepted convention that only one or two very notable "related" programmes go in the infobox. You keep adding a list of several other programmes which make the infoboxes look cluttered. If people want to visit articles for other programmes, then they will do so of their own accord. A mass list of other shows would probably put them off, if anything else. - LBMtalk to me21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Please stop removing references from this article. Although a reference is not required, removing a reference that is already included is not action that should be taken per WP:V. Also, the episode counts for each season are not referenced. Although an episode has aired, there is no source stating that the number of episodes listed actually aired, while some weeks aired reruns or skipped episodes altogether. AldezD (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@AldezD: References are added for upcoming episodes and then must be removed once the episode has aired. References are kept for exceptional circumstances which are for other features of an overview box eg home media releases. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This does not address the lack of reference issue in relation to the episode count. Again, references should not be removed if they provide verification of the details listed in the table, and removing the references is not in agreement with WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, nor WP:TV. It has also not been a practice within the Deal or No Deal (UK game show) article to remove references to season start/end dates and episode counts once an episode has aired. AldezD (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Line ups
Could I ask you why you've deleted series 19 and series 20 cast lists that some of us have put hard work into doing them for the past year. JJloose (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and close this? It has been a more than a month and has two supports, no oppositions. Usually it is closed by now, and I forgot about it. I don't know how to do the "whole closing a discussion" thing, so if you know how I'd say go for it and merge this sucker. If you don't, I'll go ahead request an administrator do it. Corkythehornetfan22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you still have all the lists? So I can make my own website for this but I need all the line ups that you took down :) JJloose (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean for example the tables that has Monday and the underneath had Ruth Langsford etc etc and it was on for series 19 cast list and a series 20 one until you deleted them :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJloose (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Could I please bring this table back in, as me and several other editors have worked hard on this, as other editors and myself of this page are quite annoyed of your constant disruptive edits of this.
@Bob N1C2: I understand your frustration, but as per the Wikipedia guidelines this type of Fancruft material is not permitted on the site. I strongly appreciate your time put into this but it is too trivia. I never watch Loose Women so I never noticed it before until you pointed it out to me on the GMB page where this is also non-permitted. Regardless even if it was not Fancruft it would be still removed as it is all self-research and not referenced. That is what makes it impossible to maintain. This only applies to a certain group of fans of the show. If you wish create a Loose Woman Wikia. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I just add why do you say "this but it is too trivia" when it's not hard to understand and it helps Wikipedia editors like yourself and myself who edit that page regularly to categorise panelists in to which seat they sit in, the amount of appearances, etc (User talk:Bob N1C2)13.22, 27 October 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Trivia information is non-encyclopedic that more falls into the TV Guide category of trivia. It only applies to a certain group of fans and the article is a list of the presenters not a TV Guide of the show. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well youre right it no longer needs to be on wikia as, there is now a forum of TV guides of presenters, p.s. Could you please leave the bit where it's says John Stapleton : 13 May 2014 - 22 July 2015 as I have researched it. Thank you User talk: Bob N1C2—Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fiji national football team
Hi mate, you reverted my change on the Fiji National football team page, if you look at the fixtures and results, they played American Samoa on the 27th August, so it should read caps and goals updated after game against American Samoa.
Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as you seem to have an attachment to this particular article, I suggest you take a close look at the diffs and see what content was added, replaced or moved: no presenters were added nor removed from the infobox in my edit. Please do not revert entire edits without taking into account the contributions of other Wikipedia users - this is extremely basic policy and acting with the civil attitude that is expected of you. I'd advise you to refrain from entering into arguments with other users about a trivial listing of television presenters. If you are so hellbent on the inclusion of a full list, then feel free to edit the article and add/remove names at will - but reverting entire edits (which includes restoring references and rewording weasel words into proper English within numerous sections of an article) demonstrates particularly poor judgement. LBMtalk to me23:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As per your comments on my talk page:
Follow Up, It was not your edit I was reverting.
...so why did you revert my edit?
Another editor removed some of the presenters from the infobox.
Yes, that is correct.
However your edit still contained those changes so I had to restore the last viable option.
No, you didn't. Simply editing the article and re-adding those presenter names is all that was required. Going for the easy option and clicking 'undo' is a very careless thing to do for the type of edit you wanted to make. LBMtalk to me23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@LBM:, I don't really think terms such as hellbent are really fair, because after all these are the Wikipedia guidelines on based how the article should be written.-- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 23:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Find me a specific guideline or policy stating that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to list only certain presenters for tenuous reasons that make sense only to them rather than simply provide one succinct, clearly understandable and recognisable list of current presenters in the infobox, be it main, relief or both. (NB: there is a distinct difference between the 'cast' of a sitcom or entertainment show and the 'presenters' of a news broadcast.) LBMtalk to me05:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ITV NEWS LOGO.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).
We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
