User talk:Jaguar - Wikipedia

Hai, I saw your GA review in Drishyam. Could you please review another article Loham. It was failed in a previous nomination and all the issues addressed in that has been resolved. It has undergone two peer reviews and is copy edited by a user from GOCE and a number of other experienced editors on my request, especially User:Atsme who is the major contibutor lately. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll be happy to take it. I should finish the review either tonight or tomorrow, it's that's OK. JAGUAR  13:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Feeling excited. Thank you very much. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Corrected all the issues you addressed. :-) --Charles Turing (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Diddy Kong Racing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hai, Jaguar please review my next GAN Peruchazhi, i am sure it will be not like the previous one. This article has been checked against the B-Class criteria. JØ +TALK 04:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, taken. It looks like it's in much better shape than the previous! JAGUAR  14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks JAGUAR. JØ +TALK 15:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Diddy Kong Racing you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Diddy Kong Racing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know that you are an atheist. I do respect your feelings. But, this is one of those rare moments where i can spread WikiLove with no regard to achievements. I will be happy if you accept this as a gesture of WikiLove. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Pavan! I'm grateful that you thought of me, and I am actually familiar with Maha Shivaratri - I remember it from school several(!) years ago. Don't worry, I respect religion and am interested in the cultures they bring around the world. My whole family are Roman Catholic, me and my father are the only atheists, so I know how to feel out of place. JAGUAR  17:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

How you are aware of an Indian festival is something i could not understand. Anyways, i am happy for that. Well, did you watch Manam? How did you feel? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I haven't yet watched it, I've been very distracted with RL stuff over the past few days and consequently I'm finding less time for wikipedia, although I'll probably get back to full editing later this week. I promise to watch it by tomorrow at the latest! I studied the history of the US, the British Empire and India at school, and it was the only subject I thoroughly enjoyed and done well in, so I still remember some aspects of it both vividly and vaguely. JAGUAR  17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Do watch it with your family, it is a very refreshing film. Do prefer subs for the same. May i know what RL means? Baffle gab1978 was also speaking about something similar. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"RL" is short for real life. And I promise to watch it by tomorrow night at the latest, I'm in a mood for something refreshing! JAGUAR  18:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pegasus Bridge (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Pegasus Bridge (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Pegasus Bridge (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article, 2007 Coca-Cola 600 which you reviewed at GAN is up for an FAC nomination if you wish to comment further. Also Congratulations on getting your first Featured Article! Well deserved!. Z105space (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to review this for GA? Let me know if you are interested in doing so.   Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing, taken. JAGUAR  17:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking up the review despite a busy real life. Much appreciated! Hope everything is well. BTW, did you watch Manam? Just curious to know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to tell you that I finished watching it yesterday! It was so long that I had to watch it in three parts. It was very good, I enjoyed it! I was surprised that some lines were in English; I remember at the very beginning the parents wrote out "hi". The thing I found most impressive was the cinematography and storyline. Overall, brilliant! JAGUAR  11:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Glad you loved it. The best scenes for me were when the businessman sees his mother at the traffic signal, the old man happy watching his parents at the hospital during the intermission. Last but the best, the way these two couples unite in the pre climax at the businessman's birthday. Unfortunately, that old man died during the film's production and if you recognise him, he was Abhimanyu in Mayabazar. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Was that really him? I didn't realise! Yeah, those scenes were probably the best for me too. The actors were amazing. All Telugu and Tamil films I've watched so far have good atmospheres and life-like acting; I appreciate them more than commercial American films nowadays. JAGUAR  16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The old man was suffering with cancer during the film's principal photography. He died in January 2014, and only one song was left to be filmed. Two things notable: the expression you see in his face when the businessman and the doctor embrace in the pre climax i.e. this is the last scene he performed. Second, all the male protagonists are related to each other in real life. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know they were all related! That's interesting. It sounds like he had a fitting end to his great career. JAGUAR  13:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was fitting indeed. But the journey was a painful one as well. This may interest you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

How touching. He really loved acting and even did it in the final moments of his life, something that 99% of Hollywood actors wouldn't do as they would likely retire in their final years and live in hyped mansions in Beverly Hills. I have the utmost respect for him. JAGUAR  13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Except for a song, everything related to his character was wrapped up. His condition turned serious and sensing that he would lose, he called up his son (his "father" in the film) to bring the dubbing equipment near his bed so that he would complete it, saying that he hates some other mimicry artist doing it for him when he left. It affected his voice very badly. Well, i am glad you liked it and i appreciate your efforts in watching it despite a busy real life. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That really is something special, he deserves the highest honours in acting. I know that some people love genuine acting, and he was an excellent actor. From here on out I'm not so busy in real life any more, but it's just my internet which affects me now; it keeps dropping out every ten minutes and it forces me to make loads of small edits! JAGUAR  13:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Similar issues here. I am trying to add something to Mayabazar since the last 50 minutes, and i could do it only now. Hope your internet crashes do not affect your GA/FA plans and contributions. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's driving me crazy! My speed at best is 0.70 megabytes per second. It's bearable for editing Wikipedia pages but I can't do anything else. Sometimes I resort to tethering my computer to my phone and using mobile data, but I don't know if it costs anything... JAGUAR  14:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for WP:FA, I would appreciate your comments. If you find spare time leave your comments, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jaguar: Hey, sorry to bother you again, but any reply would be appreciated. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 07:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, Numerounovedant! I've been inactive from Wikipedia for a while. I'll take a look at the FAC tomorrow. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I appreciate it! NumerounovedantTalk 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the user Jo Bieson is blocked indefinitely. He was one of the socks of Sm Sangeeth Sm77. Previously he used multiple accounts to fake the GA review of Premam. He is a "GA freak" nominating moderately written or already developed articles (by someone else) for taking to GAN. In the two articles you promoted Drishyam looks fine, but Bangalore Days doesn't look like a good article. It surely effects the reputation of GA classification. BD cannot be compared with other GA's and cannot be taken as a reference for developing GA's. I think you should delist it. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I thought he was a sockpuppet. I was far too lenient on Bangalore Days, how embarrassing! It's time to rectify that, I'll just delist it now. JAGUAR  16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good decision. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see that Bangalore Days has been delisted by you. I understand that you were the original reviewer, but I don't think the process was carried out in a formal fashion. You never explained why the article did not meet the criteria (in its talk page). If you based your decision solely based on the sock-puppetry thing, you might want to consider a reassessment (individual or community) for Drishyam as well. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I thought sending it through GAR would be a waste of time, as it would be delisted anyway. Passing the GAN in the first place was an error and my decision would have been the same even if JO Bieson wasn't a sockpuppet. Anybody can send Drishyam to GAR if they would like to. JAGUAR  15:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am looking forward to a Bach cantata as TFA on Easter Sunday. Several of his early works are mentioned prominently, some of them GANs: Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106 and Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196. Would be nice to have them improved until then. (Will tell Yash! the same,and try to improve more.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll be happy to take some. I'll have them complete in time for Easter. JAGUAR  16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the infobox adds nothing to the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind infoboxes when they are used correctly; for example they're useful on articles that cover settlements or anything media-related. But when it comes to infoboxes on biography articles I don't see what benefits they bring. Sinatra's infobox (before the collapse) had a lot of pointless information and cluttered the article. I support the removal of any infobox on a BLP but when it comes to GA reviewing, I never bring it up. JAGUAR  20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just wonder where we obviously see things differently. I am willing to not visit Sinatra again (enough of the suspicion I recruited warriors), may he rest in peace. Same for Peter Maxwell Davies. Please take a look. - There's also a discussion on the talk, among gentlemen who arrived at a compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know how heated things can get so rapidly! I was there when the compromise was made, and I remember it was made not to affect Sinatra's transition to GA. If I ever review Peter Maxwell Davies, I will never bring up the infobox ;-D JAGUAR  22:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was reverted, and discussed as should be, no? - Thank you for another fine review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The cantata is on the Main page now, very suitable: not only Palm Sunday, but in some areas of the world already Bach's birthday. Please watch WP:QAIPOST, there may another coming (thinking of BWV 150, BWV 131, BWV 71). The old ones are less critical in time. Thanks again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Changed my mind: BWV 243 nominated, 71 will be next, Thoughtfortheday will work on 131. On Bach's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The infobox in Peter Maxwell Davies is a prime example of WP:Disinfobox. I wouldn't hold it against an editor when reviewing either but it really has very limited use and would look better without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is yours?  — Calvin999 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're becoming exceedingly tedious. Just fuck off. JAGUAR  23:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, as long as you do too?  — Calvin999 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Best to ignore Calvin's ANI post now I think, he's just trolling for a reaction. Funny how Sinatra has had millions of page views since it was written and nobody complained about the infobox and then Calvin of all people brings it up! Even if it was innocent, his trolling and looking for drama since proves the sort of character he is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know! He's not worth it. I've never seen anybody so needlessly provocative on wiki before, so I'll just ignore him. As Mark Twain said: "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level"! JAGUAR  11:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please reconsider your reversion of my edit. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it seems that you beat me to reverting that vandalism, and I accidentally reverted you! JAGUAR  16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I work with Slick Rick and am reworking the page for accuracy and brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigator212 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Jaguar made a mistake about Remus Cernea because you never checked my changes on Remus Cernea's page. 1. Remus Cernea is no longer Green Party politician. 2. Remus Cernea has never graduated because he didn't pass all exams. 3. Remus Cernea's Alma Mater: none. Yes, I'm against Remus Cernea because he tries to manipulate people but Wikipedia should be objective and check. The Romanian and French version of Remus Cernea pages are completely different — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco7777 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

How dare you? You made a mistake changing my modification about Remus Cernea. How can you prove your modification? You can check the Romanian and French versions about this politician: no longer Green Party, never graduated(check Romania version). Alma Mater: none Jaguar are you subjective person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco7777 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry about that. The revert was indeed a mistake on a semi-automated program and I've reverted my error. JAGUAR  14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Steep, Hampshire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, MaranoFan! It's best to just ignore Calvin now; the more people feed him, the more reason he continues his trolling. At any rate he's going to be blocked soon. JAGUAR  11:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Steep, Hampshire you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Steep, Hampshire for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Dcirovic (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's your first, right? Good luck! (If you want to review a GA by what I think is a new nominator, turn to BWV 131.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on bringing Jumping Flash! on the front page today. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both! I've taken the review Gerda, I should finish it soon. I can't believe that it's been vandalised already, and to annoy me further, the spelling "instalment" was changed to "installment". JAGUAR  13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

My last one was changed funnily within minutes, but was otherwise quiet. Seems to help if death is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit is explicitly prohibited by AWB Rules of Use #4. Please stop making such edits or your AWB access will have to be removed. —Kusma (t·c) 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say that they're pointless, I set AWB to restore all project banners to their default names, similar to this example I saw happen last week. My edits also include fixing typos/syntax and re-aligning talk page banners. JAGUAR  16:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As the AWB Rules say, "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." Bypassing template redirects has no noticeable effect on the rendered page. Do not make edits that do not change the rendered page, it does nothing but annoy people by clogging up their watchlists. If you think it should be done, at least have it done by a flagged bot so the changes can be easily ignored. —Kusma (t·c) 16:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You were warned about this before. At the next incidence of one bad AWB edit, I will remove your access. —Kusma (t·c) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've stopped editing now. I'm wary of clogging up people's watchlists (I've already clogged up my own, considering there are some surviving 2012 townships), so I won't change the redirects unless they're actually broken. I did indeed find and corrected some broken ones, which inspired me to go through all the townships today. In the meantime I'll have to think of something more worthwhile to do. JAGUAR  16:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you've not forgotten but the WP:Awaken the Dragon contest starts in 4 and half hours time. I wish you the best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nope, not forgotten! I've got my GAN reviewing on standby... JAGUAR  18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, bro. How's it going? Best of Luck with the "Awaken the Dragon" BTW. Is the contest more like "Awakening the Wikidragon in you?" If so, would there be one next year as this year, I'll pretty much be on "on-and-off" doses due to my Final Year Project (FYP).    — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ssven, it's going well thank you. Yeah LOL, this comes to mind for some reason! I haven't been writing many GAs this month due to lack of motivation, but who knows what will happen this month. I don't know if there will be one next year, but it would be good if there was because it is beneficial to the project. Did you want me to copyedit Anbe Sivam? JAGUAR  12:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can if it's alright with you.    — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even though that night is still a blur, I gave it a copyedit, although I left the structure alone as I'm not aware of the content. Let me know if you need anything else! JAGUAR  15:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

For this week I'm introducing a sort of game to blast away those stale old stubs with a prize at the end of it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Stub Obliteration 2016. Expansion rules don't apply to any articles done through this, all you have to do is ensure every article you submit is minimum 1.5kb readable prose in total and adequately sourced and readable and remove the stub tag and update the project tag on the talk page. It could be that the article is 1.2kb readable prose and you simply add 0.3 kb prose and just quickly smarten up the sources and give a minor copyedit. The goal is reducing the number of stubs we have and making them more consistent, minimum start class entries. Read the top for the rules and more details and add your name to it in the style of the main entries page if you want to participate. It's open to contestants and anybody who is participating in the editathon independently. Potentially a lot of points can be earned from mass basic expansions with this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Got the fixes done, let me know if there is anything else! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

are you still making contact with me and harassing me? What's your problem? And please go an educate yourself as to what trolling means. I notice that you haven't informed MaranoFan what vandalism means.  — Calvin999 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as harassing. Daily Mail is a tabloid and is shunned from being used as a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. I've had it explained to me myself in numerous FACs. I'm not sure why that source survived the article's FAC, maybe it was an oversight or somebody added it after it got promoted. And I meant to say WP:DTTR, that too is also shunned and unhelpful in all cases. JAGUAR  22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

And before you say anything, I typed an edit summary for re-instating MF's warning, but pressed cancel, deciding it's not worth the hassle. But it re-instated it anyway. So no lectures please.  — Calvin999 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

But it is a music critic who is reviewing the song. Of course it's opinion based. I don't see the issue with, or with using Daily Mail.  — Calvin999 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, Calvin999. While the Daily Mail is not seen as a reliable source when it comes to news items (politics, and so on) there's no reason why it can't be used for a music review by a critic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, and to answer your point Jaguar, that is why it was not asked to be removed during the candidacy for FA.  — Calvin999 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong. For that revert I apologise. JAGUAR  22:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good, thank you. See, I'm not the evil troll that several people are making me out to be. I was right, and MF was wrong. He refuses to listen to me, but seems to have befriended you. So perhaps you should tell him he was wrong, and explain why.  — Calvin999 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

All set! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to conduct the GA review of this American redhead? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You know, I was watching Easy A last night and I thought she had one of the only American accents I really liked. Of course I'll take it! JAGUAR  12:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for looking at it so quickly but do remember to do this the next time. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Will never forget. JAGUAR  15:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Worm That Turned! I'm always happy to take any of your reviews as I enjoyed reading through them. Let's hope for many more in the future! JAGUAR  13:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

All set! And congrats on your Barnstar, you deserve it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fixed up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! JAGUAR  19:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears you have added material copied from http://www.holyhead.com/stcybi/index.html, a copyright web page. All content must be written in your own words please. Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ninja Diannaa: is there really any need for hiding the revisions? JAGUAR  20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's the usual practice. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's fine, just seemed odd for all the revisions to be hidden! JAGUAR  20:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

All intervening edits (between addition and removal) need to be hidden for the revision-deletion to be complete, because the content is present in each intervening diff. I've done some crazy revision-deletions in the past, involving thousands of diffs! — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your source?Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm in the middle of writing it! JAGUAR  11:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You know people like you really piss me off. I created that article not less than ten minutes ago and you should have known I was in the middle of expanding it. Can't wait to get my Autopatrolled back so that it prevents me from being patronised like this. JAGUAR  11:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jaguar, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Congrats to that, - overdue ;) - Would you have comments for my latest FAC (no Bach, for a change)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gerda! I feel like a demon has finally been put to rest. I'll leave some comments at your FAC soon. JAGUAR  18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating St Padrig's Church, Llanbadrig, Jaguar!

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

Looks good - added a picture from Commons.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Hello, Jaguar. I have been working on the Anthony Anderson article for quite a while, so could you please consider reviewing it for GA status? I have put in a lot of work into finding as many sources as possible, but I am sure that there are some errors. Also, I think it may be too detailed, but I'm not sure where to start. Feel free to start the review! TempleM (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Taken. It looks good from what I've seen, comprehensiveness is arguably one of the most important parts of the criteria (definitely the most important part for a FAC). JAGUAR  16:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that.. i thought this was the first animated film directed by 17 year old boy. Kindly remove the tag please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beforechristentertainments (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry thats the first animated film by 17 year boy..please remove tag please

Since you recently had your "autopatrolled" right regranted, I decided to check your recent article creations. Sadly, they present copyvio concerns, and content issues (e.g. "dedicated to the namesake of" is double: either its namesake is saint X, or it is dedicated to saint X, but it is never dedicated to the namesake of saint X...")

St Mary's Church, Menai Bridge

St Mary's Church, Menai Bridge vs. source

"Dating from the 18th century, St Mary's Church is dedicated to the namesake of St Mary." This should be 19th century.

"The church was re-constructed in 1858 in order to accommodate the congregation of Menai Bridge, which had grown too large for the church of St Tysilio, situated on Church Island. Local residents wanted to keep the church on the island, however in 1850, the rector Reverend T. Jones Williams, insisted that the church should be built on the mainland, on a site granted by the Marquess of Anglesey. The final cost of construction was £1450"

"Built in 1858 to accommodate the congregation of Menai Bridge which had grown too large for the church of St. Tysilio on Church Island. Traditionalists wanted to keep the church on the island, but in 1850 the rector, Reverend T Jones Williams, insisted the church be built on the mainland, on a site granted by the Marquess of Anglesey. The final cost of construction was £1450"

Comparing the two makes the copyvio (with very minimal paraphrasing) clear.

"St Mary's Church consist of a large nave with six roof bays and a chancel of three roof bays, which are both exposed with collared trusses and cusped braces." No, they are not exposed with collared trusses, they have exposed collared trusses: "Nave of 6 roof bays, chancel of 3 roof bays, both with exposed collared trusses with cusped braces" Avoiding copyvio doesn't mean to some minimal paraphrasing which changes the meaning, but to a complete rewrite which keeps the meaning (see also above "Traditionalists" vs. "Local residents").

St Machraeth's Church, Llanfachraeth

St Machraeth's Church, Llanfachraeth vs. [1]

Most important, you claim "St Machraeth's Church (also known as the church of St Figael)", but your only source states that is situated "c 1.5km ESE of the church of St Machraeth.", which means that they are two different churches, and that yor article is named for one but describes the other...

"The first mention of the church was during the Norwich Taxation in 1254, however little survives other than the font and the foundations of the walling. The present building is probably early 19th century in design, however according to a historian in 1833 a small portion of its ruins "are remaining". The church was renovated in the 18th century and subscriptions had been collected for its repair in the 19th century. "

"A church here was listed in the 1254 Norwich Taxation, but of a medieval church, little survives other than the font and perhaps foundations and part of the walling. The present building is probably early C19 "but a small portion of its ruins are remaining" according to Lewis in 1833, though C18 plans are said to survive, and subscriptions had been collected for its repair in the C18."

Strange how the C18 at the end changes to the 19th century in your version. The text is better paraphrased than the previous example, but still in parts too close for comfort.

St Maelog's Church, Llanfaelog

St Maelog's Church, Llanfaelog vs. [2]

"St Maelog's Church is a medieval church in the village of Llanfaelog, situated in the Isle of Anglesey, Wales. The building dates from the 18th century" Um, when do the middle ages end in Anglesey? A medieval church from the 18th century? Well, not really from the 18th century, it was built in 1848 which is the middle of the 19th century of course.

"Dating from the 18th century, St Maelog's Church is dedicated to the namesake of St Maelog." Again, 19th century, and get rid of that terrible "dedicated to the namesake of" construction

"The present church was re-constructed in 1848 in order to replace the old church of St Maelog, located on a similar site within the churchyard. The building was one of many churches on the Isle of Anglesey that were either substantially re-constructed or rebuilt in 18th to 19th centuries."

"The present church was built in 1848 to replace the old church of St. Maelog, located on different site within the churchyard. The church was one of many churches on the island that were either substantially reconstructed or rebuilt in mid C19."

Built is not the same as re-constructed at all. Use "constructed" if you must. And replacing "mid C19" with "18th to 19th centuries" is not really exact of course, you could have used "around 1850" if you needed to retain this information. Basically, you copied these sentences, changed three words, and made two errors in these three replacements (not counting the major errors I highlighted from the lead)

St Llwydian's Church, Heneglwys

St Llwydian's Church, Heneglwys vs. [3]

"The current building is a mid 19th century church for the village of Heneglwys. The church was rebuilt in 1845 on the same plan and in the same style as the previous building, with much of the old materials being reused. The architect for the development was the local Rector J Wynne Jones. The former church is thought to have been dated to the 14th century, probably replacing the older church of Heneglwys which, was built in C12. The present church building has reset 14th and 15th century windows, and late 14th century openings in the porch; the eastern window is a mid 19th century replica of the original. "

"Mid C19 church for the parish of Heneglwys. The church was rebuilt in 1845 on the same plan and in the same style as the former church and much of the old materials were reused. The architect was the Rector J Wynne Jones. The former church is thought to have been C14, probably replacing the 'old church' (Heneglwys) which, judging from the reset Norman stonework, was built in C12. The present church building has reset C14 and C15 windows, and late C14 openings in the porch; the E window is a mid C19 replica of the original."

The "Heneglwys which, was built in C12" is a telltale sign of the copy-paste you did: you removed part of the sentence but forgot to get rid of the comma, which now is an unnecessary distraction.

St Gwenfaen's Church, Rhoscolyn

St Gwenfaen's Church, Rhoscolyn vs. [4]

I don't think you have understood the text you used as a source. This is not a 15th century church, but one from 1875 (so not a medieval church). The "door" issue; "The current church was was built in the 15th century and stands on the same site as the previous church. Its doorway has been set in the southern wall, unlike the original church. " No, the 1875 church has the 15th century doorway "reset in the Southern wall".

You try but fail to indicate when you quote things, "The reasons for listing include it being a a "good example" of a rural parish church and "simple" Gothic-revival style appropriate to its scale and site.". The original text is "Included as a good example of a rural parish church, the simple Gothic style appropriate to its scale and site, and with rich interior fittings.", so you should have writen ""The reasons for listing include it being "a good example of a rural parish church" and "simple" Gothic-revival style "appropriate to its scale and site"."

These are the five most recent ones, the ones preceding this have the same copyvio and content problems, meaning that you clearly shouldn't have the "autopatrolled" right as all your recent articles need thorough checking and some may need deletion. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fram: I understand that the church articles could have been better paraphrased. British Listed Buildings is the only source that covers all of these, and its writing and syntax are on par with a Victorian telegram. The articles I recently created were for the Wales in Red competition, which required that participants create any article over 750 characters, which I have done. I accept that my lack of dedication to properly flesh out the church articles might be interpreted as copyvios but I don't understand why this would result in having my Autopatrolled revoked again. Regardless of this, I've demonstrated that I can create quality articles since 2012; I've already created ten articles that have since become GAs over the past few months. I've honestly felt that I was still being punished for something that happened four years ago, when I was a totally different person. I admit that I have made errors in the last two articles; I stated that the churches were medieval when in fact they were built in the 1800s. I made a template at User:Jaguar/Wales listed building to help speed things up, but now the contest is over I won't be creating anything more. I don't understand why these recent articles result in having Autopatrolled revoked because I won't be going back to doing that, and also everybody knows that I'm a good content creator with no intention of mass-creating etc. What should I do to get this back? I can't help but feel that creating more articles to tick boxes seems like a waste of time. JAGUAR  12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"I accept that my lack of dedication to properly flesh out the church articles might be interpreted as copyvios but I don't understand why this would result in having my Autopatrolled revoked again. " I'm sorry, I don't think I can explain it any better than you just did. Creating many articles in a short time with copyright violations and multiple factual errors (on rather short articles, not one error in a long article) is the perfect reason why your articles need to be patrolled. "I admit that I have made errors in the last two articles" and in the others as well. "everybody knows that I'm a good content creator with no intention of mass-creating", but you were right now mass-creating articles with poor content. You may not be going back to that, but we have only your word for it. Why do you want the right back so desperately? It doesn't change anything for you, only for the new page patrollers. Fram (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know that having Autopatrolled rights is nothing major, but I just got tired with being inadvertently patronised by people whenever I started new articles. When new page patrollers patrol articles, they are usually under the impression that the person creating them is a newbie, so they either tag articles or leave condescending messages when you're in the middle of fleshing them out. I always edit in quick bursts and whenever I hit "save page" it is usually met with interference, so I thought having Autopatrolled will clear things up for me. I know it sounds insignificant but it's a little thing that can make a big difference for me. That, and it reminds me of the traumatising 2012 experience. I guess the only thing I can do is to create more so the number reaches around 25, and think of the church articles as an inconvenience. JAGUAR  13:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps think of the church articles as something needing urgent cleanup instead of just an inconvenience in your road to the autopatrolled status. Fram (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for a week

I just noted that on 13 April, the article St Cybi's Church you created on 10 April 2016, was completely rev-deled as a copyright violation, and that you were warned about this here a few sections higher by User:Diannaa. You simply continued doing the same afterwards, and are only concerned about your autopatrolled status, not about the copyright violations. This is not acceptable. I have accordingly blocked you for a week. Fram (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fram, I was just in the middle of reviewing six GANs in my open tabs. I thought that the St Cybi's Church claim was exaggerated and I disagreed with the rev deletions. Yes, I copy and pasted extracts from British History Online and paraphrased them into the articles. It was the only source I could have used. What else could I have done? It's a competition for creating articles over 750 characters. I took St Cybi's Church as an acknowledgement and I tried to rephrase extracts better in the future. With the horrible syntax there wasn't much I could have done. I did acknowledge and accept Diannaa's message. Why am I blocked for a week? Isn't that exaggerated for something that I said I would no longer do? JAGUAR  13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from entering any further competitions. They are a means to improve Wikipedia, not an excuse to rapid-fire error-riddled copyvio articles. As for what you said you would or wouldn't do, I have seen how truthful your comments were at the request for autopatrolled page as well. I look at your actions, not your claims. The GA reviews will have to wait, and shouldn't have been your priority anyway. Cleaning up the mess you created should have been more important, if you cared about Wikipedia instead of some competition. Fram (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I care about is improving the encyclopaedia. Look at the scoreboard for the Wales contest, I'm nowhere near the top and when I started creating the church articles I knew full well that no matter what I done I would never win any prizes. I did it for fun and to help improve the project, which is what Wikipedia is all about. I think you took my comments at the autopatrolled request page the wrong way, I genuinely couldn't remember that I had another set of articles deleted in January 2013 and another in late 2013. I wasn't active at all in 2013, I think I made something like only 200 edits in that entire year, so everything in that year is a blur. Why a week? I don't understand what this is going to do when I said I'd never create church articles again as the stub contest ended yesterday. Believe it or not, I really do have respect for you, and that's something I rarely to say to people. I respect your actions as a level-minded admin, and it feels odd for saying that as I have outspoken views on adminship. I don't know what good this block is going to serve as I've moved on. I will be willing to cleanup the church articles if it made a difference. Or you can delete them if you see fit. JAGUAR  14:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"I thought that the St Cybi's Church claim was exaggerated and I disagreed with the rev deletions. "

Your article:

"In 1897 a chapel was added to the south side of the existing ancient church. It consists of a life-size recumbent figure with watching angels at the head and feet, which was designed by British architect Hamo Thornycroft. The steps of green serpentine marble were taken from the quarry at Rhoscolyn. The memorial was erected to the memory of W. O. Stanley and his wife, Ellen. On the south face of the south transept is a sun dial on which is the inscription "Yr hoedl ar hyd ei haros a dderfydd yn nydd ac yn nos" which translates to "Life though long it stay will end in night and day"."

Source[5]

"In 1897 a chapel was added to the south side of the existing ancient Church. In it is a monument of Carrara marble. It consists of a life-size recumbent figure with watching angels at the head and feet, which was designed by Hamo Thornycroft. The steps of green serpentine marble were taken from the quarry at Rhoscolyn. The memorial was erected to the memory of the Hon. W. O. Stanley and his wife Ellen. On the south face of the south transept is a sun dial on which is the inscription "Yr hoedl ar hyd ei haros a dderfydd yn nydd ac yn nos" which translates to read "Life though long it stay will end in night and day"."

The claim was obviously not exaggerated and the revdel perfectly appropriate. When you do try to paraphrase, you create mangled English and factual errors.

"The original church consisted on an early Christian monastic settlement was established at Holyhead around 540 AD by St Cybi, a cousin of St David. Cybi chose to build his monastery within the walls of a ruined Roman fort. In the 6th century the original church was sacked by Viking raiders."

Source[6]

"An early Christian monastic settlement was established here at Holyhead around 540 AD by Cybi, a cousin of St David. Cybi chose to build his monastery within the walls of a ruined Roman fort, and the 'clas' whioch he established controlled churches in west Anglesey for the next 1000 years. The 6th century church was sacked by Viking raiders in the 10th century."

You butchered the first sentence and put the Viking raids 400 years earlier, while still not avoiding copyright violations. That you had problems with this revdel indicates that you need to rethink your approach to article writing here. If you feel that you don't have enough sources to write an article in your own words, then don't write the article. Fram (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can delete the articles if you want. I think a week's block is unnecessary and fruitless. I know that I've done a bad job of creating those articles but you haven't explained what the point of this block is. JAGUAR  15:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

A note here that a page had to rev-deled because of copyvio clearly didn't help; my note detailing the problems with these five articles didn't make much of an impression either. So we try something else. Perhaps this time the message will get through. If the problems happen again afterwards, the block will be longer. If no more copyvio's happen after the block expires, so much the better. Fram (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? Are you worried I'm going to be creating more copyvio Anglesey churches? JAGUAR  15:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm worried that you will add more copyvio's, period. Fram (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fram: Rather than block him for trying to help wikipedia, do you not think that it would be more productive for him to simply reedit them? Sorry Fram, but you do have a history of pouncing on anybody who creates a lot of stubs within a short period of time. The fact is you don't like it when people create more than two articles in one day, even if they're adequate and don't have vios. Do the decent thing and unblock him and let him fix it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Rather than block him for trying to help wikipedia" I really stopped readng there. Adding copyvio articles where the few things not copied are likely to be wrong is definitely not helping the Wikipedia. Not doing anything about them after the problems have been pointed out is not even trying to help Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

As for "if you cared about Wikipedia instead of some competition". Jaguar is taking part in the competition because he cares about wikipedia. That's why. And it's not as if Jaguar has a chance of "winning" or wants to win. He was genuinely trying to help. This is not just "some competition", it has produced some of the best content on average together I've ever seen on here. More decent content produced than you've ever produced in how many years on here Fram? You come across as a bully who relishes ridiculing other editors for their errors. Those are listed buildings Fram, many Grade II* subjects, really notable buildings. Yes, it's unfortunate what has happened, but it's not anything which can't be fixed within a few hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have said nothing about the notability of the buildings, which is utterly irrelevant here. Someone is not allowed more copyvios and more errors the more notable the subject is he is writing about. I have also said nothing about the contents created by others in this contest. I haven't said that the contest should stop, I have said that Jaguar would be best to stop caring about contests if that leads to these problems (and he blames at least part of the problems on the contest, with things like "What else could I have done? It's a competition for creating articles over 750 characters.") But good going with the personal attacks, that's really the way to get someone to reconsider. Feel free to fix these articles, that would be useful. Fram (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply