User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones

Land Rover Series
Land Rover Series
Overview
Manufacturer	Land Rover
Production	1948–1985
Assembly	Solihull, England
Body and chassis
Class	Off-road vehicle
Layout	FR layout/All-wheel drive
Chronology
Successor	Land Rover Ninety & One Ten

purge server cache | edit count | edit summary usage

This user lives in the United Kingdom.

82Y

This Wikipedian was born on 28 April 1942 and is 82 years, 6 months, and 26 days old.

This user is a native of Wales.

UK

This user uses British English.

This user is from Cardiff,
the capital city of Wales.

00:00

This user uses 24-hour time.

Mae'r defnyddiwr hwn yn Gymro/Gymraes

This user is Welsh

This user owns one or more dogs.

Bread of Heaven
This user supports
WELSH RUGBY

European Championship Rugby Union – The Six Nations, 2012 – Wales, Winner,2012 – The Grand Slam, 2012

European Championship Rugby Union – The Six Nations, 2008 – Wales, Winner,2008 – The Grand Slam, 2008

European Championship Rugby Union – The Six Nations, 2005 – Wales, Winner,2005 – The Grand Slam, 2005

3

This user's rugby union position is Tighthead prop.

id2

This user is a Land Rover owner.

This user is an MGB GT owner.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Rugby union.

This user is currently reading the 2010 novel, THE DEATH INSTINCT by JED RUBENFELD.

This user drinks coffee.

This user is ambidextrous.

This user contributes using Firefox.

Big Brother is watching this user.

Nota bene – I shall reply to messages wherever they are posted.: So, if you write something here ... my reply will also be here. Equally, if I have written something on someone else's talk page ... I shall be watching it for a while ...

Tip of the day...

Lead Section Size

The lead section of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, generally appears between the lead section and the first subheading.

Rule of thumb: If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. The following table has some general guidelines for the length of the lead section:

< 15,000 characters	medium size	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Summary essay:

WP:CREATELEAD

RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive

The Sopranos

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to The Sopranos. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to The Sopranos may be discussed on Talk:The Sopranos. Feel free to add your thoughts. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message: it is best if you make your case at the article talk page, just follow the link I left above. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I hope you are still out there and still at it. It would be good to hear from you. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I cannot tell you how pleased I was earlier this evening when I saw your greeting. I was on my way out then, hence the delayed response. I have always regarded you as my mentor, and I've missed your influence.

I did leave you a message in the section "Huh?" on your talk page on December 19, 2011, and then I too had a break from Wikipedia until January 10. Since then I have kept at it. Did you want me to do anything particular? Hope all is well with you,

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear back from you, and glad you are still here and working. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. I am at work on an article right now, which is why I have not been editing on a daily basis for the last month or so. But, still at it after that much needed break. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you are there should I need you. I'll certainly let you know. Together with User:MarnetteD we have been keeping The Godfather as I believe you would like it. Keep in touch. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012 The Sopranos

The whole article is unbelievably laboured throughout. Extent of content in Info' box has been discussed previously, and has been debated extensively but to no avail, thanks to the aggressive participation of non-registered IPs. Suggest partial protection before attempting editing on this article. A project on which I would then be more than pleased to participate. [User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried requesting protection at WP:RFPP? -- œ ^™ 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put in a request for Temporary semi-protection. I should like to thank El duderino, and everyone else who has helped on The Sopranos since 25 February 2012 (UTC)--- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection:

Persistent sockpuppetry. Repeated deletion of sourced material by new editors. Persistent vandalism. I have had help from the Wikipedia:Cleanup Project (since February 25) and I should welcome your help in maintaining this article. Thank you, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jayjg^(talk) 03:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message

Hello again,

You kindly said that I should ask if I needed your help. I promise not to be a pest, but in view of your considerable experience in coping with the vandals and the like, could you just tell me what happens next after my posting a report on the Administrators' noticeboard, regarding continuous vandalism and disruptive behaviour by a non-registered IP at an Open Proxy address. I don't understand the next stage of the process. Do I just wait... will I be contacted?

The poster never fills in an Edit summary and warnings posted on the IP Talk page never receive an acknowledgement. Please reply on your page; I have noticed that is how you prefer to operate. Thanks, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. I saw your message earlier today when I stopped in to look up something, but had no time then to reply. As it is, I am not really sure what to say. I have only been involved with ANI in the capacity of adding comments after others began the process. I have never made an ANI posting myself. The whole process seems rather arcane to me, which is why I have avoided whenever possible. I am sorry I cannot be of more help.

Can you give me further specifics about the problem you are having with the vandal? And a link to the ANI post?

Oh, and by the way, I have no worry whatsoever of you becoming a pest. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your reply early this morning ( 04:05 hrs. over here)

Please don't concern yourself. I had assumed that you had experienced this action several times during the past years. I understand fully that you are avoiding the tedium of edit changing supervision nowadays and concentrating on proper, productive work. I do a little myself, but I am still not confident enough to start an article from scratch like you have so often.

I greatly appreciate your final comment. Thank you, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was, and remain, quite serious in my offer of help. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know.. and I hope I'm not tempting fate... that open proxy site has remained quiet since taking action . I did a follow-up with the admin involved a few days ago. Still keeping a very close eye on The Sopranos page and The Godfather page. Had some success on the Sopranos' Info'box/"starring... have a look, if you are not too busy! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

Hello,

Please see my posting ( today's date ) on the Sopranos discussion page. No hard feelings, I hope! Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and good note for the IP. (If only all such interactions on WP could be conducted so cordially.) AV3000 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos (episode) Info' box

I have noticed that whilst a long list of guest actors features in this info' box, the "Starring" line is missing. I have added the four main actors/characters to the edit page, but, for some unknown reason, I cannot make the edit appear on the article page. Any help would be welcome. Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Template:Infobox Television episode and it appears it's not part of it apparently.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd, doesn't it, especially as "guests" can be listed ... and it works on the The Sopranos' Info' box

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's deliberate. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. Jay32183 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense when I think about it. Although, in this instance, it being the pilot, the omission of the names of the regular actors might appear to be unusual.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were there really 16 actors billed as guest stars in this episode? Seems like a lot.-- TyrS chatties 05:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Guest actors maybe... but "stars"? ...No.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Guest stars" or just guest actors? (possible edit request)

Hi,

Just wondering, when actors have appeared in an episode of a tv series but did not have starring roles (e.g. all the names from Amber Tamblyn down in the infobox for this episode of Buffy), is it appropriate to list them under "Guest stars" (especially if they were relatively unknown at the time)? And if not, would it be possible to add another parameter, for example "Also featuring", or perhaps even change "Guest stars" to "Guest actors" or something? (This issue may be related to the one raised in the previous section, since that article on an episode of the Sopranos has a ridiculously long-looking, to me anyway, "Guest stars" list - though I don't watch that show, so I have no idea, maybe they were all billed as guest stars.)

Thanks very much! -- TyrS chatties 05:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I agree with you.

Regarding The Sopranos (episode), it is the style of The Sopranos to feature the names of the "regulars" during the opening sequence – which is the same, every episode, except for the removal of The Twin Towers after the destruction of 9/11 – and list everyone else who appeared in that particular episode during the closing sequence.

Kind regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Can you explain to me what you meant by a (possible edit request) please? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for your reply.

By "possible edit request" I was referring to where I asked if it might be possible to change the template to say "Guest actors" instead of "Guest stars" (or possibly, if people hated that idea for some reason, to add another line/parameter called something like "Also featuring" (or, I suppose, "guest actors"), for non-"star"ring actors (though there will probably be people who hate any change to any given template, I suppose, *sigh*).

Especially considering what you wrote about the way they do it on The Sopranos, it sounds to me like the former solution would be a lot simpler and easier.

Kind regards, -- TyrS chatties 03:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

I have just made this edit:

[[(cur|prev) 11:23, March 29, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,108 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Subst: “stars” → “actors” More accurate title (see The Sopranos (episode) discussion page.)]]

on the Template for television series episodes... waiting for the proverbial to hit the fan...

Your *sigh* (above) speaks volumes! It made me laugh. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth! Thanks very much for making that edit! I was too cowardly to do it myself. Hopefully it won't cause any uproars :) Kind regards, -- TyrS chatties 12:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

How can I report vandalism to an administrator, such as yourself?

For example, yesterday afternoon, one of the sites I watch, Spit (landform), was vandalised by 68.191.254.214 (talk). After "un-doing" his edits, I clicked onto his talk page. May I suggest that you do the same? It makes interesting reading. Why are un-registered, anonymous editors alowed to operate? It makes no sense to me.

He seems to be a serial vandal, who is repeatedly warned ... and merely goes to another site, only to be warned again. Having just previewed this posting, I see that both the ID number AND the(talk) are in red. Yesterday the former was red but the latter was blue. What has happened? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

The matter of whether or not anonymous editing should be allowed or forbidden is actually a topic that has been discussed since the creation of Wikipedia itself. General consensus is that anonymous editing should be allowed, since creating an account has few restrictions on its own, making it only a minor speedbump if one wishes to vandalize. Equally several studies have found that, while 80% of the total vandalism is done from IP's, 80% of the edits from IP's are quality edits. At the same time editors tend to be more likely to become involved with the project if they can do a few minor changes (Such as fixing a typo) without having to register an account first.

As for reporting vandalism, we have WP:AIAV for that. One can report vandalism from accounts on this noticeboard once they pass the threshold for a block (Meaning that they have at least been warned a few times). The IP itself is - quite annoyingly at times - a dynamic ip. This means that the IP address is dynamically assigned to a different user every session. As of such the user editing from the IP might be a different user every day, which is one of the reasons why it may be switching between good and bad edits at times.

As for the red link, this is due to the link being incorrect (Or rather, the link is correct, but it doesn't link to the talk page). User talk pages are linked by adding User_Talk: before the name. For example [[user Talk:Excirial]] links to my talk page, and [[user:Excirial]] links to my user page (I added NoWiki tags around them to show them - otherwise they would have turned into actual links). The part before the : is actually a so called zone which allows for grouping similar pages together, so that all user pages, talk pages and templates have their own location where they can be easily found.

I hope that the above helps, and with kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Excirial,

It certainly does help, and thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply.

With regard to the latter part, can you direct me to where I can learn more about the use of the various symbols and unusual keys that have a specific use on Wikipedia, please? For example, I have just noticed how you increased the left margin with a single : ...so I try two, and it works!

With best wishes from the UK, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

There are several pages that may be handy in that regard. First and foremost there is the WP:CHEATSHEET which lists and displays the effects of the most commonly used commands, and is therefor handy as a quick reference. A more complete version of the cheat sheet can be found at Help:Wiki markup, which lists virtually all options there are, but is, therefor, a lot longer and therefor more suitable if one needs a rather specific feature. Another page which you might find helpful, is WP:HELP. This page categorically lists all the help pages and is therefor quite convenient if one is looking for some specific help.

With sufficient time the help pages make a good read as well, but due to the sheer amount of pages it contains it may seem to be to much to handle. In that case it is always remember to remind one specific policy while editing - WP:BOLD. This policy can be summed up as "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold", but "Be not too bold.". Any change made can be undone, so there is no real harm in making mistakes while editing. Of course there is a certain limit called common sense, as randomly deleting the content of multiple pages is generally a bad idea. And as always, if an editor leaves a comment on your talk page that is unclear, feel free to ask them, me, or the WP:HELPDESK.

With kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Excirial,

Once again, a sincere "thank you" for your interest and considerable assistance. I am learning so much with your guidance...not bad for someone who will be 70 next Spring...and I am impatient to read more and more.

One small thing, can one edit an existing "_TOC_"?

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

Indeed, i have to admit i was rather impressed when i saw your age listed on your userpage. Most people your age (Not trying to generalize here!) have a rather hard time learning computer basics, so it is indeed pretty impressive that you handle the (quite complex) wiki syntax so well. New, as for the question - a TOC (Table of Content) is automatically generated on the basis of the headings on a page. As as example: I currently have an 11 header TOC on my user talk page, as there are 11 level 2 sections (Section with two == on each side) such as this discussion on my page.

If i were to add additional headers it would automatically create another section in the TOC. Equally if one were to use level 3 or level 4 headers (Denotes respectively as === and ==== in the headers), one would have sub headers under the main header in the TOC. For example, the Google article has 6 level two headers, and 15 level three headers which generates the multi-layered TOC. If one wishes to edit the TOC one only has to change the headers on a page. Title changes and header levels are immediately altered when saving a page. Some more detailed help on TOC's, as well as advanced commands (Such as hiding or forcing a TOC to show), can be found at WP:TOC.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Excirial,

I loved your last "Quote of the moment" and the today's is a great one too.

Once again, thank you for the explanation. I thought it better not to indent this communication, but rather to start afresh.

I read, with great interest, your reply to IsoMorpheus(Talk) yesterday, because I had been wondering about the subject of moving WITHIN an article... (NOT the whole article elsewhere, or move over a part of another article ... but say, hypothetically, the fourth section to become the sixth.)

Returning to my original subject, as I understand it, an editor who has not registered, or an editor who has not logged in, will be allocated, automatically, a numerical IP address which, being dynamic, will be different every time. If this is correct when, if ever, will the offender read a posted warning?

I look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

The above reply to IsoMorpheus was mostly related to copyright, and the process of moving an entire page to a new location. If a section is moved from within an article itself by copying and pasting the data this is (thankfully) registered in the history of the article itself, so the "Move" procedure is not needed for this type of change. The move procedure only applies for moving entire article's to a new article name. Moving sections just requires editing the entire article with the edit button on top of the page, and then copying and pasting the section to its new location.

As for the IP address, this might be a little bit more difficult to explain, as it is more related to the infrastructure of the Internet itself. Once you sign up for internet access, your Internet service provider (ISP) will assign you an IP address that allows other machines to identify who is asking for data or websites to be returned. Compare it with the good old paper mail - without an address on the envelope the mailman will not know where to deliver the letter. The same sort of scheme is used on the internet itself, to determine where packages of data have to be delivered.

There is one difference though - In the mail example we assume that the user is always living at the same address which is almost always correct. In internet terms, this would be a static IP address (One address is virtually always the same user). At the same time an ISP might be doing things differently - suppose they have 2000 IP's hand out; In the static example they can only have up to 2000 customers since every IP has its own "Owner". As you might imagine this is somewhat limiting - not everyone is online at the same time, which means that the IP's (Houses) may be unused at times, which is a waste. Instead the ISP may decide to assign IP's dynamically, which means that an ISP may give a random IP every time a person asks. Compare it to vacation - if you rent a bungalow you are assigned one that is free, and that may not be the same one you were in last time. The duration of this lease may vary - some ISP's will give a new IP for every connection, other rotate at timed intervals such as once a day. There is one last allocation scheme that may be interesting - at times ISP's may just have one outbound address trough which every single user connects (And the ISP tracks within their network who is who). Compare it to a mailbox where the mailman dumps all his mail, and the users sort their mail and deliver it within the building itself.

Now, as for the question. If a user has a static IP he will always see the messages since they will almost permanently own the IP. If a user has a dynamic IP he will also almost always see the messages, provided that they are send while their session lasts. If the user leaves right after the first edit, or if the message is late it might happen that the user who sees the message is, in fact, not the person that was the subject of the message. This is a lot of fun with the "Postal Box" example since there may be a ton of editors on that address at the same time. As for preventing bad edits - Static IP's are easily blocked, and dynamic IP's that reset at regular intervals can also be blocked easily (The offender has to wait, for example, a day before retrying). If this really get bad due to users hopping on the various IP adresses by resetting their session, we can block an entire range (ISP's generally own ranges, also called blocks, with subsequent IP numbers in them). In that case account creation and anonymous editing is blocked, while logged in edits can edit normally. Such a blanket option is of course somewhat of a last resort, as it may block up to 65536 IP's and thus possibly as many users.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Excirial,

I have made a blunder this evening. I replied to your last missif (above) and posted it (I thought) at 18:59 hrs GMT. I have just returned to my office after dinner, to check my watchlist, and discovered that I had been on my User talk page, and not on yours. Should I re-post on your page?... Can I move it to you using the method you use?... >Sync. Would you be able to move it to your page from mine?

With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good evening Excirial,

Thanks to your detailed explanation, now I can understand. It seems a shame to me that Wikipedia allow a visitor, who presumably does not wish to be accountable, to have access to the content of many Wikipedia pages, if he/she is able to alter, delete, defile, etcetera, at will. An enormous amount of work must be created daily just combating these actions when they are either malicious, ignorant, stupid, or childish. I do understand that the majority of edits are well-intentioned, and that the casual visitor could be put off, if forced to register.

Just copying and pasting with the mouse... I had not thought it could have been so simple. I have been adding content to my user page, and then practising what I am learning. It shouldn't matter then, should I foul-up. If you have the time and the inclination, please visit!

With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

I just found the section on your talk page and moved it over here. What i do with these section is little more then just copying and pasting the entire conversation back and forth between talk pages to keep then "Synchronized" (With the edit summary being short for that word). Note that this is simply my preferred way of handling conversations on a talk page - other editors prefer replying to another talk page, or leaving a message that requests that the sender of the message visits their talk page for a response. Personally i just prefer readable talk archives where one doesn't have fragmented and cryptic conversations with only replies stored.

As for the edits, perhaps some interesting statistics - The English Wikipedia received, on average, about 220 or so edit every minute (3.5 or so a second), of which on average 10 a minute are vandalism (About 1 every 6 seconds), though numbers can peak at 300 edits and more a minute and 20 or so vandalism attempts a minute. A lot of these edits are IP users making a harmless correcting such as correcting a type, rephrasing a line or similar. Not every edit is the same quality, but most are well intended.

As you might imagine, that are a whole lot of things that need to be checked, and luckily there is quite some infrastructure in place to do so. There are - among others - some automated bots that revert vandalism (Catching up to 50-60% of all bad edits), there are special filters that block common vandalism, and there are some editors such as myself working with specialized tools to clean up the remainder. These tools are thankfully so effective that 2 or so editors can handle the average workload the English Wikipedia generates (Quite often the response time averages to around 2 minutes, and sometimes it is less then a minute). Even so there is still quite some room for improvement in the manual tools, which means that there should still be quite a bit of stretch in the amount of edits that can be handled. Some vandalism naturally passes trough regardless, as it is either difficult to detect or missed by the patrols and automated programs. In that case we have to rely on people watchlisting article's, or people working on them to filter the last scraps out.

As for editing, i will - provided that i have the time - see if i can offer some advice regarding your edits. Of course, if you have any questions regarding editing (Whether a concrete question or simply on a "Is it possible to..") don't hesitate to ask! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Excirial,

I understand now how you can deal with the enormous amount of work. Nevertheless, you are clearly highly adept with the system available, and also seem to have tremendous patience dealing with me and whoever else comes on your talk page. I do appreciate the trouble you have taken with my questions, and "Yes", I much prefer the continuity of conversation as a result of the Sync. method.

Our original contact followed my reading your edit timed at 20:21 hrs. GMT, on November 22, 2011, on a page on my Watchlist, Stieg Larsson (he is the deceased Swedish author of the books known as "The Millenium Trilogy".

Your edit summary reads: (Reverted edits by...to last revision by Gareth Griffith-Jones(HG)).

Now I understand that you probably have no interest in Larsson or his novels.

It's good to know that you are there to help.

Kindest wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Excirial,

Just to say that my last comment about Stieg Larsson above, on second reading this morning, could sound a little obnoxious. I apologise for that, and hope you read it as it was intended, that is as a general remark about whatever it is you happen to be reverting/undoing at the time. As for this specific reversion, one date for the Period had been altered from 2004 to 2029... he died in 2004. Clearly, vandalism, but what if the alteration had been conceivable?

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

No offense taken whatsoever - seeing the conversation we had till that point it would have been quite odd if the remark was meant in the "obnoxious" sense of the wording, as you would call it. As for the revert in question, you just managed to hit one of the most annoying types of vandalism to deal with - minor changes that could be logical. Quite often changes are made that change a birth date by one year (Or similar numbers), and god knows if that is actually correct or vandalism. In those cases we tend to rely on the reliable sources in the article, which is why sourcing is so difficult. Once a reliable source is added that information is more or less "Set in stone" until an editor supplies another reliable source that challenges the information added. In other words, if there would be a source in the article that states a certain year that information would be considered leading. Even so, this type of vandalism might be missed at times since it is much less obvious then the word "Poop" in an article about nuclear power. In those cases it more or less depends on the people watching a specific article to correct it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you are back

Hello Excirial,

Good to know you are back. Hope all is well with you. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones,

All is entirely fine, just another one of those enjoyable busy periods which leave very little time to do any wiki-work at all. They happen at times and cause me to edit very sporadically or even to disappear for some time. It is very pleasant to see that you are still around, and based on the contribution history i can see quite a bit of good work being done. Always a pleasure to see another editor who not only decides to edit for a while, but decides to stay around longer as well. :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Excirial,

An enthusiastic, well-intentioned, young user has taken it upon himself to set in place the automatic archiving of my talk page. I know you have it here, run by a bot. He set it for 10 days (!) ... all without asking me, would you believe? (But he did inform me after the event.) Fortunately, I got to the formatting before bot, and altered it to 91 days. Then, in spite of advising him of this, he sneaked back to alter it again to ... "activate the bot" ... so now I have copy in an archive which I would prefer to be restored. Is there a way of doing this automatically? Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones

I must admit i had a good laugh over that Bold action by the other editor as it is clearly well intended but not the most convenient thing to do without some form notice. Thankfully our good friend Cluebot works just like a regular editor, so i reverted its edits which restored the sections it removed. Afterwards i deleted the User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones/Archive 2012 page it created to store the content, to prevent any form of duplicates.

it might be wise to set up some (Manual or otherwise) form of archival though. Right now the talk page is 300Kb in size, which makes loading it slowed. If my own talk page remained in one piece it would result in a 2Mb download every time it is opened, which is of course rather heavy (Especially if an editor works trough a mobile device, or is in a part of the world without broadband access). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Excirial,

Thank you for seeing to that so promptly ... hadn't realised a simple "undo" would have served ... but then I would have missed the part about deleting the archive. My young friend was only being helpful, I know, and as he watches my talk page noticed your actions and immediately removed the archive set-up formatting. I hope he is not too offended, because he is a most obliging person, and has been keen to help in many ways.

Your comments on its size (and his, tonight) are duly noted, and will be acted on. I think a manual archiving method would be more to my requirements, but in the meantime I am ruthlessly "shredding" several sections and other content to reduce the number of bytes – was 323,009 when you looked at it, will soon have it well under 300,000.

Since we started conversing last November, I have followed your pattern of keeping the conversation all together. With a few exceptions, when we both stick to the user page that has the first posting and 'watch' each other – I find most users only post/reply on the other user's page. I have therefore adopted your preferred method, but by using the copy 'n' paste procedure.
My question is regarding the Sinc system that you employ: is it special software? or is it available when I click on [Tools→Sync now] up on the menu toolbar? I am afraid to try. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Griffith-Jones,

The copy and paste system is indeed the most convenient system (for me), since it keeps the flow of conversation quite visible and understandable, while also giving archiving a talk page an actual purpose (After all, what use is there to reading 10 answers posted a month ago without knowing what the question was?).

The "Sync" system i use is all manual work though. i tend to write the reply on my own talk page and then copy that entire section over to the other users talk page, replacing any old copyover (Provided that won't overwrite anything i don't have in my copy). The consistent use of "Sync" is mostly born out of laziness on my side (Similar to using the summary "> R" when i reply to a section). Before the text i wrote would be "Synchronizing section with other user user talk page", but over time that simply got shortened to "Sync", as it is much faster to write. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Application to use Huggle

Good evening Excirial,

I have made a request to have permission to use Huggle. If, in your opinion it should be granted, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at my application here, and, if you agree, make an appropriate comment.

I should be much obliged.

Kind regards,

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POSTSCRIPT: Good evening Excirial, No need to trouble you. I was granted the permission earlier today. Now to study Wikipedia:Huggle and Rollback – any tips from you on either or both would be appreciated. With best wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

First of, congratulations! I have spend the weekend away so i haven't been able to reply (Which might have been for the better though, as some might have raised the canvassing red flag over it). As fr using Huggle and Rollback, they are fairly simple to use. Rollback works similar to twinkle´s version of rollback, be it that it is faster since twinkle needs to emulate the functionality. Other then that there is not much to say about rollback as it is mostly a 1 link feature in the article history.

As for huggle there is more to say. The first advice i would have is being careful - Huggle is capable of being extremely fast - so fast that it can more or less outmatch an editors checking speed. There has been more then one editor who tried to go as fast as Huggle could and ended up against a roadblock because they started to make to many mistakes during their attempt to counter vandalism (I can point to myself three years ago for an example). Personally i keep in mind that it is better to miss one instance of vandalism then to scare a new editor away with a barrage of unfriendly talk page warnings.

Ok, cautionings aside - using Huggle. One of the major advantages of huggle, besides from its speed, is that it can be controlled almost completely by the keyboard. Using the keyboard is not only faster (No need to follow the mouse cursor), but its also easier on the eyes since one doesn't have to look around all the time. I can therefor highly advice reading the shortcuts as they are very convenient. Personally i tend to control Q (Revert and warn), R (Revert) and Space (Next edit) with the left hand, and the brackets ([] - previous edit / next edit) with the right hand. About 95%+ of the activity resolves around these keys. Vandal reporting generates a click-able popup, but can be set to entirely automatic if so desired. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl with the dragon tattoo

Further to my reverting your edit earlier today...

... please see this extract of the family tree in the novel:

Family Tree (part of)

                               Birger (Henrik's grandfather)

    Johan (Henrik's Uncle)               Fredrik = Ulrika (Henrik's parents)
    b.1884                               b.1886

 Sofia  Marit  Ingrid             Richard   Harald   Gregor   Gustav   Henrik Vanger
                                   b.1907      b.1911   b.1912   b.1918      b.1920

                          Gottfried = Isabella Keonig
                               b.1927       b.1928

* Their two children:  Martin b.1948 and Harriet b.1950

I hope this has cleared up your (very common) misunderstanding. (Henrik does often refer to Harriet as his "niece")

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot spoilers" Jmaxmiller11

Hello Shuipzv3.

Thanks for putting me right on this one Actually, I was only putting into acceptable format, the edit which someone else... Jmaxmiller11... had just posted...you should read it..! Jmaxmiller11

Once again, I appreciate your input.

Best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Spoilers-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

No problem, best wishes to you too, and happy editing. Shuipzv3 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castleton

Hello Martin Evans 123,

Thank you for inserting another photograph onto the above. I should be grateful for help on how to carry out this action. I've got as far as registering with Geograph and choosing an appropriate photo, but, then I'm stuck.

Can you help me, please?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P S If you have the inclination, you would understand my particular interest in Castleton, if you were to read my User page... it's not very long!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gareth Griffith-Jones. Your User page makes fascinating reading, I must say. You are obviously interested in Geneaology, which is probably true for many contributors here, including myself, although I think Wikipedia itself is really interested only in the genealogy of famous people!

It used to be quite a laborious process to use geograph images jere - creating a geograph account, taking a photo, uploading it to geograph, creating a Commons Account, uploading it onto Commons refering to geograph, uploading it to Wiki from Commns with a correct and then finally adding to a Wikiopedia Article, with a correct caption. It's much easier now, since most geograph images have been loaded directly into Wikipedia. Simply search Commons (you can get there from the Main Page quite easily - here's an example [1]) and add what you consider the most suitable image to the article.

When I started on here I found User:Dr Greg very helpful with advice on loading images. If he is still around I am sure he would be happy to help you if you have any technical questions. If you are thinking of creating and adding many images it is very worthwhule creating your own Commons account. I do hope that is of some help. Do let me know anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin Evans,

Thank you for responding so promptly, and "Yes", you have been most helpful. I appreciate it very much. Do you have a particular interest in that part of South Wales? I see from your User page that you are Welsh too. Your current page is a lot of fun. I enjoyed reading it.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued) PLEASE HELP 'AN OLD DAB' WITH A DAB LINK

I have visited User:Dr Greg and I have registered with 'Commons'. I wonder if you could help me with formatting a 'dab' link on the Castleton article. I keep on trying and just can't get it to turn blue.

It is for City Bridge, Newport (2004)

I found it in the List of bridges in Wales, sub-section Gwent article.

It's a terrific structure, and it's the nearest bridge over the A48 to Castleton. Your move of the two pictures is much more logical. Best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Newport, City Bridge[reply]

I've barged in (excuse me, Martin) and corrected it - it needed simplifying, that's all. If you hover your cursor over the link in Bridges in Wales, the correct article title is revealed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sure your contributions are very welcome. But don't be surprised if another editor comes along and trims the images away, as they are probably not supported by WP:MOS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite probably - there are a lot of images in what is actually quite a short article. But I think sometimes, it's worth bending the 'rules' in order to be helpful and show someone how to do something... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. The images are not "wrong" as such. If someone feels strongly enough, then I'm sure they will be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, Martin Evans,

Thank you for the above advice, including leading me to WP:MOS, and for your involvement in helping a new boy. Whatever the outcome, I enjoyed the exercise of adding the three photographs.

PaleCloudedWhite has been great and I am now starting to get to grips with Wiki markup.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. You are obviously quick to learn and very enthusiastic! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have picked up on my return to my early roots. Like what you have done very much. Also you notice that I am receiving encouragement from other quarters. All help is sincerely appreciated. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think it's a slightly awkward article to format yet as there are more images than text. But hopefully that may eventually change. A church of that vintage, and a very large one for that denomination, should certainly have quite a history to tell, I would have thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that you have read my conversation on my talk page with FruitMonkey on Castleton... you know that you have been awarded "the freedom of my Discussion page"... so should we need to co-ordinate, it might be better to continue here. Do you agree?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. If you want to copy over anything from here, please do so. I must admit that I had not read your exchange with FM, but I now will do! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PaleCloudedWhite

Hello,

Many thanks! Aren't you quick off the mark? How did you read it so soon after I posted it on Martin Evans' page? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's page is on my watchlist at the moment, as we've exchanged a few lines recently. I've also just amended the layout of Castleton slightly, to better separate a couple of sections - take a look! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It looks much neater. Thank you. We have common interests: roses, maps and the countryside. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

I have put more content into the above article: Three photographs and, also, moved the section "Railway" down the page.

Further to your formatting <br_clear_=_"right>, I could immediately see the improvement, but what actually did you do?... and, does it still have a use?

Looking forward to hearing from you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an instruction to begin the subsequent text only after there is a clear break on the page, in this case on the right-hand side (if you type "left" instead of "right", it begins the subsequent text after a clear break on the page on the left-hand side.) This enables you to avoid having section headings squashed between images/infoboxes etc. (or, to look at it another way, it enables you to keep an image attached to a particular section, without it overlapping into subsequent ones). Does that help? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does help. Many thanks, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The layout of the photographs is far better... once again, "thank you", and I shall now try to work out exactly how you achieved that. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that you might help me on this formatting query. In this article, today, Owain has altered your "clear breaks"... see above... removing a left, and substituting a right with <br_style="clear:left/>, but I cannot see why, or what it has achieved.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'left' break was removed because it was superfluous - all it did was slightly increase the space between the article's first line and the contents box. And the replacement of the 'right' break with 'style=clear:left' has removed a lot of white space before the article's 'Transport' section. I think both changes are improvements. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that, on careful comparison this morning; although I had read your reply yesterday evening, and thought it deserved a "fresh" mind in order to give it my full attention. What does the 'style' actually do/mean? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gareth. There are a number of different ways of altering the formatting so that breaks are produced or reduced or eliminated; I wouldn't claim to be familiar with them all, I have just encountered some of them (the template {{clear}} is another), and sometimes I share what I have found with others. I am no formatting expert! I haven't looked into this particular operation in any detail, but it could be just that the change effected by User:Owain was similar to using <br clear="left">, or it may be more precise, I'm not sure. Have you tried consulting User:Owain on the matter? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PCW. That all makes sense, and I believe that I am picking up more every day thanks to kind fellow users such as yourself. I did not ask Owain, because I thought he might have taken it as some type of criticism, and I have only recently (last Wednesday) started building a relationship/conversation with him. On the other hand, I feel I know you quite well now. Odd, isn't it? With best regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please!

A404 editing...

I am still a new boy, and much appreciate any help. Thank you for correcting my stupid ,careless mistake. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Those of us who have been here for years still make stupid careless mistakes. :-( David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Invisible Children, Inc

I cannot make the following reference appear properly in the References section of the article, Invisible Children, Inc

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html

This is my effort...!

<ref name=Spagat /><ref>{{cite news |http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>

- Fixed. You forgot to add the url parameter.--GoP_T^C_{N 19:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  ... and I've added title and publisher parameters. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]}

<ref name=Spagat /><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |title=Wife of Kony video director filmed running naked through streets says he was suffering from 'reactive psychosis' due to stress and exhaustion|publisher=Daily Mail|date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>

Hello David, Once again you have come to my rescue with amazing speed. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening GreatOrangePumkin, Thank you very much for your amazingly fast response to my citing problem earlier this evening. I would have replied earlier, but initially had mistakenly read your posting together with your (very attractive) signature as the first part of David's reply to me. He had not left a line break. It was only on going back to it just now that I realised my misunderstanding. With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradypus

Picture of the day

The brown-throated sloth (Bradypus variegatus) is the most common species of three-toed sloth. It is found in the forests of South and Central America. Males and females are both about 42–80 cm (17–31 in) in total body length and weigh 2.25–6.3 kg (5–14 lb).Photo: Christian Mehlführer

Archive – More featured pictures...

December 12, 2011, Picture of the day

This user is a WikiSloth.

Dashes

A question for you. What is the purpose of – i.e. { { n dash } } ? Why not just type - ? Kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this question: see Dash for considerable explanation. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nadia (again!) - a better answer than I would have given, and actually quite educational for myself, too - I'm sure that in my editing, I'm inserting inappropriately-lengthed dashes all over the place! (probably a couple in that last sentence...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and thank you from me, Nadiatalent. Your reply has led me on and on, to learn more and more!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth, thank you for your thanks! I haven't read all of the Dash page myself, but it looks as if many hours of amusement could be had perusing it and either putting some of its recommendations into effect or disputing them. Best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What a lovely sloth. A wonderful genus name too, Bradypus, which I'd guess must mean "slow footed". Nadiatalent (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on dash

Wikipedia:How to make dashes#Long explanation

The lead: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)

I would be interested to know what it is, that you don't like about my naming "the lead", Prologue? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be the first person doing it? I prefer consistency and I'm guessing the consensus is the same. Have a look at any other article. By the way, if you name the lead section "Prologue", it no longer becomes the lead but just another section. In fact, the lead section disappears and the article begins with the contents. Rather ugly in my opinion, and others' too it seems, which is why it's not done. Ever. Also, it's not a story or novel for it to have a "prologue" or "epilogue" or whatever; it's an article. Feudonym (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand perfectly. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt. Feudonym (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! All the best from the UK for 2012 from,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

	Nadolig llawen and best wishes for 2012!
	Neat Talk Page, Gareth! All the best for the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wales

Never too late. Welcome aboard. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FruitMonkey, Thank you for your welcome. Let's hope we can inspire more enthusiasm for this project! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have only just noticed that you had added some details to my entry. Thank you for that. Kindest wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we are here for. Have you created any articles yet Mr. Griffith-Jones, or are you still at the point of ammending and improving? FruitMonkey (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read it (above) I had the sensation that I was back at school... you sounded a little like one of my schoolmasters! Seriously, YES, you are right in your gentle criticism, because apart from my initial effort in enlarging the Castleton, Newport article back in November/December, you are correct... "improving and ammending" that is all that I have been busy doing.

Unless you already have, you will understand my connection with Castleton, if you were to read the "Lead" here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism levied Mr Griffiths-Jones, some of the best work is all about amending and improving (though you hit the nail on the head, I am a school teacher). I was just wondering if it there was an article that doesn't exist that you think should, and if you needed any help in creating from new. I've created quite a few new articles and would be happy to help if it was something you would like to have a 'bash' at. Keep it in mind. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I will take you up on that offer. Now to think of a candidate/subject to be my own first article on Wikipedia. Oh, please address me, "Gareth"

All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castleton, Newport

Hello! I am so delighted with your improvements to this article... they are excellent... makes me feel proud. Did you get a chance to read my page? With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Yes, I have checked out your page, which then spurred me to the Castleton article (Where my ham-fisted additions were then quickly improved by Martinevans). My sources state a few interesting facts about Castleton, 1) Its Baptist Chapel "is an exercise in neo-Romanesque polychromy" 2) the adjoining Wesleyan chapel is "almost as florid" 3) In the great flood of 1607, Jane Morgan of Gelli-ber farmhouse was drowned. The chapel alone should be able to fill a nice healthy paragraph if not its own article. I think we can make this a far meatier article. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was through editing Castleton and seeking advice that I approached Ghmyrtle last November. His name appeared on the revision history, and he pointed me in the direction of Martin Evans, whom I had also noticed there. Martin has been a constant inspirer since then.

I am delighted with your involvement here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru button

Sh'w mae Gareth, I created the Cymru button with the template name {{User:Daicaregos/CymruButton}}. It should work if you cut 'n paste. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sh'w mae Dai,

You're a star. Diolch yn fawr.

How on earth did you notice that I needed help?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dim problem. I added your page to my watchlist when you joined WikiProject Wales. Your edit summary earlier (Added Wales flag and rugby union supporter) made me look at your Userpage and I noticed the red-linked template. Glad it's sorted. It's always good to see Y Ddraig Goch flying. Daicaregos (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed your example of adding Y Ddraig Goch to my headers, but they are much smaller than yours and don't fill the column. What have I done wrong? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some bizarre reason, the header seems to need two empty lines after it to work correctly. Try that, if it still doesn't work, let me know and I'll have a go. Daicaregos (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that and (as it is now) after the Cymru button... neither way makes any difference... please have a go, yourself. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done
No idea what the problem was - I just cut 'n pasted and it worked. Sometimes there appears to be no rhyme or reason, it just is :) Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now I am ready for Ireland, 14:30 hrs. Sunday week. Kindest wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The top of my User page looks great too. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croeso, Daicaregos (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision number

Copied from Help talk:Edit summary and pasted to this Discussion page on Thursday, January 28, 2012 Table of Contents Reference:37 Title: Revision number

Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to find the "edit" reference number quickly when carrying out a reversion of vandalism. There appears to be a formulated Edit Summary that all experienced editors use... including, "... to the last revision by..." Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 7:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

There are several possibilities for an edit summary like this, but they all have the common characteristic that it's not a value filled in by the user, and I am not aware of one which included both the revision number and the words "... to the last revision by...".

You have the "undo" facility, which produces an edit summary like this, which includes the revision number, but not the words "... to the last revision by...".
Admins and rollbackers have something called the Wikipedia:Rollback feature, which produces an edit summary like this, which includes the words "... to the last revision by...", but not the revision number.

Next time you spot an edit summary of the form that you are thinking of here, could you add a link to it so that I can examine it to see what may have generated it?--Redrose64 (talk) 8:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Thank you for your rapid response. I would like to do that, but not clear on how to format the link. Please advise. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 9:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

OK, let's assume that you're using some form of Microsoft Windows (XP, 7 or Vista), because I don't know how to do this in Apple Mac OS. Let's also assume that you're looking at your watchlist. Find an edit which shows an edit summary of the type you are thinking of. Go to the left-hand end of that line, where there are two links "diff" and "hist". Right-click on the "diff" one, and from the menu which appears, select "Copy link location". Come back here, open the edit window, and at the bottom, right-click and select "Paste". Sign it, and save. --Redrose64 (talk) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Okay, I will do what you write above, but have to confess to being a self-taught computer "old fellow".

In the meantime, may I point you towards the Revision history of The Sopranos: 02:56 hrs. October 14 2011

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:38 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) (edit conflict)

Postscript: We had an edit conflict and I lost my edit... did not know how to "merge". GGJ

It sounds like the undo facility is your most likely answer. You should be able to use the "undo" links at the end of the entries in the revision history list of a page, or from a diff page. Usually they give you an edit page with the edit automatically undone and an edit summary automatically filled in recording the revision number and editor. I use this a lot, although I try to add an explanation to the edit summary before saving it. You should be able to see some examples of this looking through the list of my contributions. Vadmium 4:52 am, Today (UTC+0).

Just had a closer look at the specific revision you referred to [2]. I think that summary is automatically filled in by a script that people run to edit Wikipedia, though I’ve never used it myself. The clue is the TW link at the end. Vadmium 5:02 am, Today (UTC+0).

Great service from both of you. It never ceases to impress me how helpful you "seniors" are to "the new boy".

The editor who welcomed me, RepublicanJacobite, inspired me constantly and I used him as a role model until Christmas.

Thank you, Redrose.

Thank you, Vadmium.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 9:30 am, Today (UTC+0)

Retrieved from ‘http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Edit_summary&oldid=473306700’ Category: WikiProject Help Project pagesHidden categories: Wikipedia pages using copied templateWikipedia pages using copied template without oldid Personal toolsGareth Griffith-Jones My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out NamespacesHelp page Discussion VariantsViewsRead Edit Add topic View history Unwatch ActionsMove Search NavigationMain page Contents Featured content Current events Random page Donate InteractionHelp About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page ToolboxWhat links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionThis page was last modified on January 26, 2012, at 09:30. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view

Talkback

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Hello Redrose,

You were most helpful last night with regard to my question. I am sorry that I failed to pass an example over in time, but my typing was lost due to our conflicting editing, and by the time I re-did it you had probably retired to your bed.

This happened to me once before and each time I panicked and lost the lot. This time a bit appeared. (see Edit summary "Ooops, how did that get there?" by Vadmium)

I was instructed to "merge", but the Help page did not help me learn what I should do.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 6:21 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012 (UTC+0)

The main information page is Help:Edit conflict. If you do get an edit conflict, you will see two edit windows; the upper one contains what the page has become since you started editing (but contains none of your edit), the lower one is the edit window that you have been typing into. The intention is that you compare one with the other, adjust the top one to match the bottom one, and then save. This can be difficult, especially since if you had chosen to edit one section, the top one will still contains the entire page whereas the bottom one will contain only the one section that you were editing. I normally find that it's usually easiest to:

ignore the top one and go to the bottom one
mark the text that you entered since you began that edit and copy that to clipboard
use the "back" button on your browser to return to the page as it was before you began editing
edit the same section again, paste in the text from your clipboard
preview and save.

--Redrose64 (talk) 6:58 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012, (UTC+0)

That is really clear and most helpful, especially the part about the two windows.

I shall copy this to my own page for ease of reference. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

7:33 pm, Thursday, 26 January 2012, (UTC+0)

Creating that link

Hello Vadmium,

Thank you for your considerable help last night. Your "Oops, how did that get there?" edit summary was referring to a problem that I had earlier when I hit an "edit conflict" and did not understand how I was supposed to "merge". I have not found the answer on the Help page. I wondered if you had any advice.

I was very impressed with how you were able to link me directly to my example edit page within The Sopranos revision history and I wanted to know the meaning of [{{fullurl:The... (obviously the rest makes complete sense.)

With best wishes

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My “oops” thing was entirely my fault; no conflict with anyone else. As I was writing my second response, I opened The Sopranos in a new tab, and I must have selected the URL and pasted it with the middle mouse button without realising (too easy to do with a Linux computer).

A real edit conflict is when you take one version of a page and change it, but in the meantime someone else has also changed it. It’s rather annoying, but you have to review what the other change is, and redo your changes on top of it if they are still relevant. Main point that I can remember when I last got an edit conflict is that there are actually two edit boxes presented and your changes are still in one of them, so it might be a good idea to copy them somewhere safe. Sometimes if you use the section editing instead of editing the whole page I think you can avoid conflicts with edits to different sections.

The Help:fullurl page might be useful to you, but it’s a bit technical. Basically you write the name of a wiki page and it generates the rest of the URL or address including en.wikipedia.org or whatever. I only used it because I probably know more than is healthy to know about the Media Wiki software that is used on Wikipedia :). For most people it’s probably simpler to just load up the special page that shows the diff or whatever, copy the URL, and then paste it directly into the conversation, which pretty much has the same effect. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, I am indebted to you. You explain matters so clearly and make what would seem to me initially as incomprehensible, perfectly understandable. I am enjoying learning so much about "computing" since I started on Wikipedia last autumn. I find it therapeutic for "the old brain"... shall be hitting 70 in April.

With kindest wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Dash" Discussion comment

I have just noticed your comment, and have edited the relevant sentence. What do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is a big improvement. I was misreading "the word to be used" as one phrase and quite missing the point of the sentence. I made a further tweak as I still found it easy to fall into that mistake. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen your tweak and agree that it is now perfectly understandable.

It was a mess before your observation. Glad to be of help. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 1961 Land Rover Series IIA

Hello again!

Below is a section that I have copied from my user page. I have "cheated" a little, in that I have taken the photograph from the Wikipedia Land Rover Series article, but, apart from the fact that mine has the old-style (grey metal symbols on black metal) numberplates, and does not have those rather modern-looking overtaking mirrors on the doors, one would swear that it is an image of mine.

After making the two MGB userboxes for me earlier this month, you very kindly offered to help me again. I would be thrilled if you were to make one indicating that same message as shown on the MGB GT.

Obviously, I imagine you may wish to use a different image, should you know of a more suitable one.

Image:1963.landrover.s2a.arp.jpg

My 1961 Land Rover Series IIA
2.25 litre 4 cylinders
OHV petrol engine
Short wheel-base (88")
Purchased in 1990.
Shown here with its pickup type removable cab.
Also own the original removable "full tilt" top with sliding side-windows, in the original colour, antelope.

I look forward to hearing from you. With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this?

Code

Result

This user is a Land Rover owner.

Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you very much. I had not thought that you would have done it today, and, what's more, three hours ago. I am very pleased. With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like that! They are quick to do! - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the general help request from the User talk:Accusativen hos Olsson. To reach another editor, simply post a comment on their talk page. The {{helpme}} template flags the entire community to your question. If you need help or assistance, please feel free to contact me directly. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice... I am still learning... and need all the help that is offered to me. I shall leave the user a message now.

You are up late... it's three o' clock in the morning where you are. Eleven o'clock here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the world's worst sleeping disorder, so nothing is normal about me. LOL That said, I think I'm heading to bed. Seriously though, don't hesitate to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you do sleep. Thank you for the offer.

I just wondered about how you composed this section heading:- What does "tl(pipe)" mean? Kindest wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm up again. Couldn't sleep. The "tl" stands for "template". Templates are presented between brackets. If we don't place the "tl" separated by a pipe, then the template will actually show up in its entirety, rather than simply showing up as a link. It's a basic cheat code. At least that's what I call it. A "cheat code". Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really are Sleepless in Seatle. Thank you again for the explanation, and I hope your computer lets you rest! I know what you mean regarding the difficulty in resisting the urge to carry out just one more task... All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just two small queries about the "Talkback" templates:

What is the difference between "tb" and "talkback"... when should one use one, and when the other?
In spite of adding a pipe, and the title of the section to which I am referring (I even copied and pasted your Section heading above) my command leads to the top of my talk page and not to the actual section. Why is that? I have received talkback messages that have led me directly to the appropriate section. Why doesn't adding |#37 work? With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there! Okay, as far as your questions, there is no difference between "tb" and "talkback". Feel free to use either. You may also consider using Twinkle, which provides a helpful linking interface for applying the talkback msg to talk pages. In order to link to the appropriate section, you have to use the name in the section header, rather than the "number" of the section, since the numbering may change with subsequent edits. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. Haven't been feeling too well these past few days. Hope all is well in your corner of the world! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry to hear that you haven't been well. I trust that you are feeling better now. For my part, all is splendid. We have just (first week of February) had our first snow this winter, and Wales beat Ireland in Dublin, and then Scotland, in our first two matches in this year's Six Nations (European Rugby Union Championship) England next at Twickenham.

Regarding Twinkle, I looked at the article page. My computer's operating system is Microsoft Windows XP version 2002. Is it compatible, I wonder? With kindest wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the same, XP02, so it will be fine. Once you start using it though, life will never be the same! LOL. Very user friendly. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Twinkle and Teahouse

Hello again!

I trust you are well. Since our last communication I have on several occasions attempted to follow your advice and activate Twinkle, but to no avail. It has now dawned on me that it won't work because I have Internet Explorer 8. I suppose that apart from buying a new computer – which I can't afford (mine's aged 12 years, but I have upgraded to XP02) – there is nothing I can do about it.

Today, I have discovered Teahouse. Looks great. Posted a query. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is there a reason that you are unable to download and use Firefox? I also have Internet Explorer on my computer, but I opt to use Firefox and it works quite a bit better for me. Hope you are well! Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star. I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox, and not only do I have Twinkle, I have a PC that I don't recognise. It is so fast. See my tonight's posting on Teahouse... it is all thanks to you, Cindy. With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I have just noticed that you have changed the style of your signature. I liked the previous one. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section retitled Cwm Rhondda

Bread of heaven I enjoyed your collection of flags at the top of this page.

I know (the English version of) the hymn that includes the line "bread of heaven". In fact, it is right up at the top of my favorites. But please tell me what is the specific connection between Welsh rugby and "bread of heaven".

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm Rhondda is a very well known Welsh hymn tune. First performed in 1907. Cwm Rhondda translates as "the Rondda Valley" in English, and more often than not, sung to the words: Guide me, O thou great Redeemer. Wales rugby union supporters adopted it years ago, although the reason is not understood, apart from the fact that it is an inspiring song which everyone knew (Sundays in chapel) and could keep repeating, and repeating... I think it splendid.

It was sung at the funerals of both Princess Diana and the Queen Mother, and at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed splendid, both tune and words. The version I learned (in the United Church of Canada) began Guide me, O thou great Jehovah.

The part of the story I did not know was its adoption by the Rugby union. A great anthem, known to everyone in Wales. I guess it is a natural. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Welsh version the line is simply "Hollalluog, Hollalluog" - which translates as "almighty" or (allowing it to scan correctly) "O Almighty! O Almighty!"" - see Cwm Rhondda. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth, I think I've confused you into thinking I know something about Wales ... I'm just supporting MonmouthpediA for Wikimedia UK. I can't claim any expertise - Suggest you ask your question on the talk page of Monmouthpedia or Wikiproject Wales. Do come back at me if Ive misunderstood. Victuallers (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or here (where many interested editors can read it), or on the article talk page. Adding the same request to lots of editors' talk pages is a bit ... unconventional? Personally, the fact that I happen to live in Wales doesn't make me an expert on - or especially interested in - Welsh hymns. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an essay on the hymn. But not sure it actually explains anything! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The singing of Hymns at rugby matches in Wales is almost as old as the sport in Wales itself. One of the best documented matches in 'early' rugby history is the 1905 classic between Wales and New Zealand. Before the match the crowds were entertained by a brass band, I'm assuming military as they played marches. Before kick off the crowds sung 'Boys of the Old Brigade', 'Ton-y-botel' and 'Lead Kindly Light'. The game is best remembered though for the first ever singing of a national anthem before a sporting event when the crowd sung 'Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau' along with Teddy Morgan. As early as the 1970s there was a public bemoaning of the hymn singing traditions at national matches, replaced with the songs of Max Boyce and howls of 'Waaay-uls'. Personally I think that the song was adopted along with many others, but being in English, memorable and catchy, it stuck. If you want a reference that acknowledges it is seen as a Welsh rugby anthem you could use this here. Otherwise I will think you will find it difficult to find a verifiable reference to why Cwm Rhondda has been embraced. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work on the article but don't know much about the rugby connection. I think it's just coincidental - a particularly rousing song suitable for crowd participation. Deb (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau. I assume it has always been sung in English at international matches? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that might have something to do with it. Deb (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the information. I have a much better understanding now. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wanderer57, Glad to have been involved. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words are by William Williams, Pantycelyn 1717-1791 originally as "Arglwydd Arwain Trwy'r Anialwch" it was translated from the Welsh by Peter Williams 1723 - 1796. The tune is by John Hughes, 1873-1932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynapHuw (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space before ellipsis

I have noticed that the Manual of Style suggests spacing ellipses, not just when one opens or closes a quotation, but also on both sides within quotations, even where an ellipsis indicates not omission of material but a mere pause. I am perplexed and confused by this guidance, for the following reasons:

It makes no sense semantically: although an ellipsis flanked by spaces would suggest an equal distance from the sentences it separates, it is actually more closely associated with the preceding sentence; after all, it represents a trailing of the voice.
The Manual recommends the use of a plain ellipsis for representing a missing part of a quotation, rather than the version enclosed in brackets. Flanking an ordinary ellipsis with spaces can cause confusion about its function: does it represent a sentence left deliberately unfinished, or a later edit of the original text? The Manual does allow for brackets if there are both kinds of ellipsis in a quotation, but this doesn't change the fact that a sole ellipsis without brackets can still be misinterpreted.

I therefore recommend that instead of "I am not sure ... I think I'll go tomorrow", the Manual ought to recommend "I am not sure... I think I'll go tomorrow" in those cases where there exists what it refers to as "pause or suspension of speech", while continuing to recommend the former variant for omissions. I am referring only to quotations because I am aware that ellipses are generally unsuitable for article prose. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This seems to have been bugging me for a while; I've searched the archives for any relevant discussions, and the closest thing I've come up with was my own complaint here. I used similar arguments at the time (almost two years ago), but no-one actually responded. Waltham

Begging His Grace's pardon (it is again an honour to be in His presence), I'd like first to appeal to the notion of ease of reading, before going into what the major style guides recommend. Spaces on both sides are easier to read, and at the other extreme, square brackets are lumpy and disruptive to the flow. The "relative closeness to previous text" argument might be rebutted by pointing out that the space between value and unit (we believe that 79 ºC is too cold for that process to occur) is well accepted (indeed, mandated) even thought the unit is more closely connected to the value than to the subsequent text.

On the matter of opening and closing ellipsis points in direct quotations: I sometimes wonder why we do it, unless there's a particular reason to show the reader that the quotation starts and/or finishes mid-sentence; this is almost always obvious from the grammar, or simply doesn't matter in the context. Why worry the quotation in such a way? Tony (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Waltham.
Regarding the use of "square" brackets, my opinion is that they have a role only if they are used to encompass two, or more, bracketed phrases. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without yet venturing (or forming) an opinion, my guess is that the reasons against (depending your viewpoint) jamming or closing ellipses into adjoining text might be two:

a general typographical problem, that in some typefaces and formats, it can sometimes be hard for the eye and mind to distinguish a word (or number) from what surrounds it [this is why I disagree with the prescription against spaces before footnotes, and agree with the direction to put them after punctuation rather than immediately after what's been punctuated, even where the latter would be more logical],
to make it clear when a word or number hasn't been shortened, but in fact has been preceded or followed by a space, in contrast to cases such as Llanfairpwll..., Llanfairpwllgwyngyll...gogogoch, 3.1415926..., or 0.3333... (The case where the front of the word, rather than the end, has been truncated is usually handled by a preceding apostrophe, as in 'copter or 'bot). —— Shakescene (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @Tony: Remember that what is easier for you to read is not necessarily easier for everybody else to read. (See this on how not all human minds are alike.) And in general, people are more likely to find easy to read what they are used to reading, which is the whole point of style guides.

As for me, I like them better closed up to the previous sentence, since (in the function being discussed here) they have a similar purpose as the question mark or the exclamation mark, which (unlike in French) are closed up to the previous sentence in English. (But given that we're talking about direct quotations, I'd just copy what the source does and not worry excessively about that.) Nitpick: º is the Spanish/Italian masculine ordinal sign; you want the degree sign ° (or just {{convert|79|C}} yielding 79 °C (174 °F), which as a bonus is also understandable by Americans, who make up nearly half the readers of en.wiki). ― A. di M. 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) and 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is semi-perennial here, and I don't recall registering an opinion on it before (though it may be been among the spate of things I tried to change my first day at WT:MOS. Remember that afternoon, Tony1? Heh.) I think that Waltham is onto something. I have honestly never paid any attention to this section of MOS (not out of animosity toward it, but sheer WP:DGAF and satisfaction that my own practice is correct, or at least correct enough for rock-'n'-roll and government work.

Given the text:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

This is how I use use an ellipsis for the two main kinds of elision (spanning sentences vs. within a sentence):

Lorem ... consequat.

Lorem... aliquaa. Ut... consequat.

If it were a quoted passage:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."

"Lorem [...] consequat."

"Lorem[...] aliquaa. Ut[...] consequat."

I do not believe the square brackets are optional, because MOS says that changes to quoted text should be marked up that way.

I would not do anything different from the sentence usage if the elision spanned a paragraph break.

I haven't checked to see if any style guides recommend this or against it. It's simply how I've done it for 30+ years and no one's ever "corrected" me.

SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 December 6#Ending sentence with ellipses in a quotation, with this message from me.

See also Ellipsis#In English. A space before the ellipsis indicates that the third "blah" is a complete word, whereas an ellipsis following immediately, without a space, indicates that the third "blah" is the beginning of a word, perhaps *"blahsko”.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene's explanation that the lack of a space indicates "a word or number" which "hasn't been shortened" is something I hadn't considered, and among the various arguments is the only one which seems to justify the practice in my mind (this is, after all, an encyclopaedia). That is not to say I am satisfied with the current guideline, however. Tony finds the brackets disruptive, but then again it could be argued that readers ought to pay attention to missing parts of quotations, and that such elisions ought to be made sparingly... (In any case, I find it hard to believe that an ellipsis without a space can cause misunderstandings in terms of the preceding letter or number. I'm sure there is a way to achieve this result, but it sounds unlikely with the usual web fonts and designs; I'd need to see an example to comment further.) Waltham, The Duke of 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Square brackets, round parentheses and curly braces

Making fun of the phrase square brackets is lame. In British and some derived dialects, what North Americans call "parentheses", (...), are called "brackets", and what N. Ams. call "brackets", [...], are called "square brackets" ~~|(or "braces", I think)~~. Computer science has used the term "square brackets" for something like 40+ years now because it is mutually intelligible. It also disambiguates from {...}, variously termed curly brackets, curly braces, squiggly brackets, wiggly brackets, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the comment above in the postscript is aimed at my putting the word "square" into italic script, then I should explain that I certainly was not "Making fun of the phrase square brackets", but merely referring to the fact that the bracket (parentheses) is not a square. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I think I need to change my edit window font. Your ''square'' brackets looked like "square" brackets scare-quoting in the wikitext! D'oh. Sorry! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The font I'm using now is spaced better, so that shouldn't happen again. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard braces to refer to the curly ones. (And I also use round parentheses, square brackets and curly braces so that I'm understood by people from both sides of the Atlantic.) ― A. di M. 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I may adopt that practice myself! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. You have just led me to discover [[Wikipedia:Scare quotes]] [[Wikipedia:Irony punctuation]] and now I fully understand your reply to me. For the record, I am Welsh, newish to computers and the world of Wikipedia. Oh, and I will be 70 in April, so need all the help offered. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... good advice given in the edit summary...

Thank you for your good advice given in the edit summary when you were reverting my edit in the article on the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird earlier this morning.

With best wishes from Wales, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In nearly six years and 26,000 edits I've made to Wikipedia, you are the first editor to thank me for anything related to reverting their edit. I don't quite know what to say, other than you have a superhuman Grace--which shows even in this small instance. Have a fabulous day and enjoy Wales. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. You are an inspiration. With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "inspiration" may be a bit over the top. I know a handful of Wikipedians who no doubt spewed their beverages on their monitors reading that I may be inspirational. Happy editing nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! ha!

We have just had our first Spring-like day here. Yet, we witnessed our first snow this winter as late as the end of the first week of this month. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No spewed bevs here. Moni both needs and deserves some good ole-fashioned butt-kissing from time to time. Come to think of it, so do I. ;) Yes, Monidear, you are inspirational, and people whose opinion mean anything at all agree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Moni and Christine, consider your butts officially kissed, ole-fashionedly. And, what the hell, you too Gareth! I would have used a wiki-love thingy to do this, but couldn't find a decent image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of relevant illustrations on Commons... although you may need to have your eyeballs bleached after you spend some time looking around for them. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What have I started? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite wiki-love images are either of chocolate chip cookies or fruit salad. Both are yummy-yummy! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...(minor) correction

Sorry, but I do not know your intention. Please elucidate. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of the comment was what I intended. Directly under yours, not indented after yours. I wasn't necessarily responding to you. Although it doesn't really matter much anyway. So...I'm going to go find five more minutes to add to my life to replace the ones I just spent on this. No worries. Carry on. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to understand. Still a "new boy", still so much to learn. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain. Yet another Wikipedia technique that I realise, now, I had noticed before today, but had not appreciated had any significance. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wales: Map

Hello Alphathon,

You certainly have my approval. In my opinion it is excellent. I just hope that the majority of my compatriots will think so too. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you approve.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response... you were up late like me. I had been celebrating Wales beating the old enemy and winning the Triple Crown. Let's hope Scotland has success today in Murrayfield.

I wonder if I could ask you to make me a somewhat similar map, but featuring South Wales/the traditional county of Monmouthshire/Castleton Castleton is a small village/hamlet midway between Cardiff and Newport. My User page lead would explain my interest. Would it be too much trouble? Only do it if it isn't. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that shouldn't be too much trouble at all and I'm more than happy to do it. There are a few things I'd like to clarify though:

When you say a similar map, do you mean a map showing South Wales/the traditional county of Monmouthshire/Castleton within the UK?
What do you mean by South Wales (the Wikipedia article gives various definitions - which do you mean)?
Do you want one map or three (i.e. all of those things together or one for each of them)?

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. To try to explain:

Partly "Yes" to that question, but, comparing it with your Wales map, Europe would be replaced by South Wales as the largest, background map, so that in turn Monmouthshire would be replacing the British Isles as the middle map, which would then be enlarged to form the third map, highlighting Castleton, Newport.

To give you enough room, I suggest it might be best to not take South Wales too literally, but to draw a line West-East through Wrexham or thereabouts and regard all Wales south of that line as your largest map.

All things together as your new Wales map.

Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My editing Cardiff Arms Park

Triple Crown (rugby union). What a result! What a try! We can do it... another Grand Slam. Surely we can beat France at home. Apologies for my editing mistake: I did not appreciate the dating criterium. I was so pleased to be up-dating the article by recording the win, and adjusting the Irish dominance over the page. The article has since been vandalised a few times... the last was late yesterday, and in my enthusiasm to "undo", I made far more work for myself than I had bargained for... it was too late at night. I have it all corrected now.

Cardiff Arms Park. I have been working on the Rugby section and wondered if you approve of my editing. With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my editing mistake: I did not appreciate the dating criterium. I was so pleased to be up-dating the article by recording the win, and adjusting the Irish dominance over the page.

The article has since been vandalised a few times... the last was late yesterday, and in my enthusiasm to "undo", I made far more work for myself than I had bargained for... it was too late at night. I have it all corrected now.

Great work so far. It's great to see articles being maintained, especially the few GA articles the project holds. For some reason the Arms Park wasn't on my watch list (it is now) so I missed your work, I'll help out more in the future. It should be noted that over WP life, the GA standards have becoming more and more critical (to the point of being quite harsh). You will therefore find that older GA articles will one day be picked up by an editor and challenged as not being GA class as they passed when standards were lower. Things like dating standards and dead links can quickly downgrade an article to B class. We should therefore try to tidy up these rough edges whenever we can. Thanks again FruitMonkey (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after reading your discussions above, may I suggest you take a look at the following articles List of Wales national rugby union players, Cinema of Wales, Boxing in Wales. Lots of lovely red links to be filled in and created. If you don't want to fall foul of WP:BLP, I suggest picking a film or a dead athlete. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a line to thank you for your two postings yesterday. Good advice which I shall follow, although I have always been "a bit of a scrapper", and enjoy an infrequent arguement. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A line to gloat about our third Grand Slam in eight years. I am so proud of our boys, and our excellent coaches... but why, in heavens, we have not overtaken England in the IRB world rankings defeats me. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St David's Day

Happy St David's Day, Martin.

I sent you your leeks about a month ago, so you will have to make do with this greeting today!

Kindest regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen this [talk:WikiProject Film#Let Me In .28film.29 problem|this] discussion, and thought that you would want to read it. It is No. 24 in the Table of contents.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the leeks - my Monmouth Cap is totally weighed down with the darned things... But in return here's a venerable old Welsh hymn for you to sing along with (even if it is in a foreign language). Only sorry there's no audio sample! Best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some hymn! ...mmm... I'd prefer something by Fleetwood Mac or The Eagles.

The reason why I sent you the sub-section above was a bit sneaky. I had posted our young (film buff) friend very late last night, just before I sent it to you, but couldn't get the link to finish on Section No. 24. So I thought I would ask you to look at it and put me straight.

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you meant this (just single brackets, with a space)? I'll have a look. Shame you'd prefer some shameless American pop act to a fine bit of Kelly and the lads, haha. Never mine the sentiment is still there! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard either group, POP... really! (and of the era that I like, three of the five in Fleetwood Mac are Brits.)

Thanks: the link does work your way, but I can't see the "space" anywhere. Also, I notice you have not used the'pipe' before the word "this". Whilst editing this posting, I can see Charlr6's link does not even have the single bracket either end, and his takes you straight to the section. Can you help me and explain all this, please. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could. Most of my wiki education has been trial and error, I'm afraid. Well, at least Mick Fleetwood was born in Redruth - a Celtic neighbour of ours. Maybe I should have sent you something by Y Peth or Y Cyrff! One of my freinds still calls this band "Cat-a-walia", haha.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the two linked articles, I'm glad you didn't. However I do like Cerys Matthews very much. Probably because she reminds me a little of Stevie Nicks.

I expect PCW can throw some light on my queries (above). Do you think he may be watching?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that PCW is always watching. Even when he's not there! A bit like a certain BIG character from a well-known film only 28 years ago, but in a much nicer way, of course. I can't complain - PCW acts as my benevolent "wiki-spectacles"! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read 1984 at school, probably in 1958, it would be set 26 years in the future. That is crazy.

Postscript: I thought this might be appropriate here.

Big Brother is watching this user.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably one of Eric Arthur's worst titles, although, of course, he died 34 years before he could have found out. Maybe. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a sort of planned obsolesence in the Arthur C. Clarke mould - though quite snappy, it has to be said... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I would do it this way. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me and much simpler - thanks. Yes, that other Arthur only missed out by three years, didn't he. Is there a pattern here? Maybe a new Category is needed! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PCW! Excellent. Once again you have sorted out my confusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mark-up dating: non-breaking space

Whilst editing, I have noticed that in some articles the dates are formatted as follows: ... on_26_Aprilampersandnbsp;1997_ at... which produces this: on 26 April 1997 at... What is the advantage? Can somebody help me please? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-breaking space. It tells the browser to avoid laying out the text like this...

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 26 April

1997 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

...with the month on one line and the year on the next. The theory is that this could make the text harder to read, but I haven't seen many dates formatted with non-breaking spaces. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John of Reading for your prompt and succinct reply. I have been searching Wikipedia for an explanation for what seems like hours. I suppose you would only use the non-breaking space after noticing its need on Show Preview before saving your edit. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film Newsletter

The WikiProject Film Newsletter
Volume VII, no. 1 - January–February

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Triple Crown ... on points-difference

Unlike the Grand Slam, the Triple Crown winners will not necessarily be the tournament winners, since France or Italy–or even another of the home nations– could outperform them on points-difference within the Six Nations Championship. This first occurred in the 1977 Five Nations Championship, when Wales won the Triple Crown by defeating the other three British Isles teams, while France won the Championship by completing the Grand Slam over all four of the British Isles teams. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 9:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily on points-difference even, it could be outright, couldnt it? If England took the Triple Crown but lost to both France and Italy, while Wales won all their matches except the one against England, then Wales would be above England in the table regardless of points-difference.--Victor Yus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, results of matches will always take precedence over numbers of points won or leaked in determining the Championship winner.

I am sure you don't need to ask who I support. What about yourself? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of mixed ancestry so I can take my pick, but I admit I always find a Welsh victory particularly rousing. Perhaps because the brilliant performances of G. Edwards & co. are among my earliest sporting memories... Victor Yus (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are clearly of the same generation. The coming weekends should be great. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam tours

There is an article called Grand Slam tours. Do we need to duplicate the information in this one?--Victor Yus (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Grand Slam tours should be merged into this article and then deleted. It is confusing having both. I agree with your earlier comments too, esp. the hidden part. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I made a note on the talk page of the tours article.--Victor Yus (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have registered my support there. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y Well done. You have done a splendid job. What a task! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Now we can sit back and hope there'll be another round of updating to Grand Slam come Saturday... --Victor Yus (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Triple Crown and now, Grand Slam

Hello Victor!

You have been busy this morning on The Triple Crown article. Well done! It is altogether a much better article now. Been good working together on this.

Kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Perhaps we should move on to Grand Slam now? Who knows, maybe Wales will manage to do so too... Victor Yus (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game.

It is looking promising, isn't it? ...2005, 2008, 20... I daren't type it.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, you can now :) Great performance yesterday by the Welsh, kept their heads, fine to watch! --Victor Yus (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...2012

Weren't they great... I am so proud. It was good to watch, and France's best performance of the tournement. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown 2012 in Six nations article

Hi, saw the entry, the delete and the revert. I don't think it's vandalism - he should have explained but in my opinion he has a point. There's already an article on the triple crown that includes the fact that Wales have won it this year. I don't see the value in adding the 2012 winner here - the article is about the 6 nations.Regards Ytic nam (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Ytic nam (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, p'haps not vandalism, but I think it belongs there. It is a part of the whole, after all. Kind wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "the current holder of the Triple Crown". Why state the 2012 winners and not the 2011, 2010 etc. winners? Just a thought, but I think it makes it more encyclopedic and less "newsy".Ytic nam (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Union Canal

Thanks for the note. I knew this one because I have made the same mistake! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Good of you to take the trouble. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hwyl!

Hi. Good win at the weekend, wasn't it? Deb (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was... in spite of the ref.! I've been watching [scrum v], courtesy of BBC i-player via cable (it is not available live here) and listening to the panel agreeing with what I had thought during the match: he was determined to penalise the attacking team – only one – Wales, whenever possible. I still enjoyed it enormously. Saturday will be great against France. It was kind of you to make contact. Diolch yn fawr, Deb. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B4521

Just noticed your editing on the B*347 today, but both of you missed this *

While on this topic, I made this edit, "The road through the village (B4521) was once the A40, linking Ross-on-Wye and Abergavenny." on the Skenfrith article at 19:45 hrs. on 18 February 2012. Does that make it worthy of its own page like the B4521? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Wikipedia will not rest until it's done all the B-roads in the country and then moved on to some new wiki-method of classifying the unclassified ones! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiedit!

Thank you for your recent contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your edit to any article, please provide an edit summary. So far you have not done so, for example, The Godfather (film). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism. It is also helpful to other users reading the edit history of the page.

With kind regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm just not good enough to speak English, sorry. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not worry about it. You are able to read English well enough. Are you Russian? If you would like a "buddy" to assist, I should be happy to fill the role. With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right in guessing. I am Russian, and normal reading in English. I write badly. :) Rules of Wikipedia I know, in the Russian Wikipedia for about 4 years ... Thank you for your kind words. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.

I had not realised that Russia has had Wikipedia for four years. I had believed it to be only months (i.e. less than a year).

Do you support Russia's Rugby Union team? Kingsley Jones, a Welshman, is the head coach of Russia. He was appointed in February 2011, leading them to the 2011 World Cup. I am Welsh.

Gareth Griffith-Jones Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) And I do not know that Russia playing rugby. See rugby only on films. Welsh is good country, me like your dragon on flag. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Good to hear back from you. I hope you are keeping well. Thank you for your kind comments about my country and flag. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For your message about the films based on books project. I've been elsewhere online for some time but would like to get back into working on the project, so stay tuned for possible activity. Thanks for signing up! Pegship (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at OwenBlacker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A470 map

Hello, You have requested a map for the A470 article today on the Discussion page. Any ideas how such a long route may be shown, other than on a map of pretty well the whole of Wales? Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was broadly thinking of a map of Wales with the route marked on it. A north–south route is never going to have a map that's too tall for an infobox, unless it were running the length of a continent :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read that you are Welsh. Do you have a particular interest in this "trans-continental highway"? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:o) More that it came up in the 2012 United Kingdom budget and I wasn't sure where it is. (Fy nain a taid lived in Aberystwyth, so I know the A47 but not the A470.) It just seemed odd there was no map with a nice red line on it. :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope the money will be put to good effect... any indication of what is planned? The A470 is one of those roads that cry out to be driven from start to finish. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the technology section:

Will extend mobile coverage to 60,000 rural homes and along at least 10 key roads by 2015, including the A2 and A29 in Northern Ireland, the A57, A143, A169, A352, A360 and A591 in England, the A82(T) in Scotland and the A470(T) in Wales, subject to planning permission, using the £150m investment announced at Autumn Statement 2011. — Budget 2012: Technology section from Treasury Budget Report, BBC News Online, 21 March 2012

So not road-specific, but good news nonetheless. I've never been along the road, but the route (from what I can gather without a map ;o) sounds stunning. I'll have to find someone to drive me along it sometime :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the hint about the missing map... see what we can come up with!

"We are working on it", as the saying goes. Had not realised before that it is styled as a (T). I'll let you know. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. Sorry, was only teasing :o) Yeah, apparently it's considered a trunk road. Who knew? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done! ...have a look! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect; that's awesome and exactly what I had in mind. Thank you! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like it... rather pleased with it, myself. I think it is in the correct position on the left. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be; it's precisely what I had in mind :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been able to resist welshcakes. I still have my mother's cast iron bakestone (maen). Mustn't be too sweet, though. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A470(T)

I can indeed, although I'm not sure where I'll get the data from for it (I'm sure I can find something… if all else fails there's always Google maps). Oh, and don't think I've forgotten about the Castleton map, I just haven't had a lot of time to do it (it's quite an intricate map and I need good historical maps to work off to get it right, which complicates the process). Honestly though, unless a relief map already exists a blank or political map would be far easier than a relief - vector graphics don't lend themselves particularly well to that sort of thing. Is there any particular reason for it being a relief? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd do fine, although Wales location map.svg would probably be more suitable; the road will be drawn in green (being an A road), and green-on-green isn't exactly ideal (plus the borders etc on this one are finer, so are less distracting). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?:

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 19:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially difficult no; maybe took about 5-10 minutes. Since the map was already there, is was basically just a case of drawing the line on top of it to represent the road. Since it is a road, there's no worrying about it joining properly with adjacent shapes (as is the case with country outlines etc), so as long as one is familiar with the software it's actually easier than it would have been to do it free-hand. Anyway, glad to be of service

. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 19:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cacen gri i ti

	Cacen gri
	Diolch yn fawr for creating the A470 map; it's very much appreciated. And who wouldn't like some nice cacen gri and a panad? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Oh, no, the asterisks are just for emphasis. It's some old Internet thing I picked up from some place or other. Think of it as equivalent to bolding or italics; in fact, I think certain IRC clients actually bold anything so enclosed by asterisks. And no worries, I didn't think you were criticizing me. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange rugby edits

Hi! Take a look at what this person's been doing to some of the Five Nations articles. Is he making corrections, or is he just randomly messing with the figures? I left a note on his talk page, but as it's just an IP address, I don't expect much response. If he's messing, we ought to revert the changes.--Victor Yus (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is irregular behaviour and without any edit summaries, and no response to your posting, I think he is messing with the statistics. Even reverting so many is a time-consuming job. I checked on the anon's location – it is Sheffield. I shall leave him a note too. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, I see that he has left (at 16:47 hrs) an unsigned comment. I have just posted this on his page:

Your recent (today) contributions to Wikipedia are being discussed.

Before saving your edit to any article, please provide an edit summary. So far you have not done so on any edit. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism. It is also helpful to other users reading the edit history of the page. In view of that, together with your unsigned posting above, you are advised that your edits are regarded as vandalism and will be reverted. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to do now?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's editing according to a source, so we should look into it to see which set of results is correct. I'll try to take a look when I get time. Or maybe we should ask other rugby project members to consider - someone must have a reliable list of results at their fingertips, I'd have thought.--Victor Yus (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the source at http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/6nations.htm contradicts itself; for example, for 1947, it lists England and Wales as the champions in the list of champions by year, but in the league table for 1947 (much further down the page) it puts Ireland top. I'd tend to believe the first list, though, as it agrees with the individual match results as listed in the Wikipedia article, which I assume someone got from some other reliable source. --Victor Yus (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at his source too. I always feel mistrustful when the editor is an anon. He stopped after your posting and hasn't returned today. Shall we carry out reversions or leave it a day or two? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think his edits should be reverted. He was no doubt acting in good faith, but as far as we can tell his source is not reliable.--Victor Yus (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y All reverted! Do you think: (a) he had finished when you spotted him? (b) you interrupted him, and may return, different IP? (c) being an anon, he has even looked at his talk page since his one reply to you? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! My guess would be he's not out to make trouble, he was just misled by the tables in the source, and probably won't be carrying on, but let's keep an eye out.--Victor Yus (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Union 1934 Championship edit summary ... "See user talk page" ... does not apply to you

See this person re: some of the Five Nations articles... the figures! We have left notes on his talk page, but as it's just an IP address, we don't expect much response... reverting his changes. See my talk page [=Strange rugby edits=]. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Rickmansworth ==

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for the warm welcome to a newbie! Vandalism - Don't understand.Please explain your reasoning. I haven't removed any of your information.Surely Wikipedia is all about contributions from others ? I don't see any information on your talk page about your plans to overhaul the wiki.

I corrected one phrase ref the Aquadrome being a stone quarry (is that a posh term for a gravel pit ?)Please refer to 'Ricky'The story of a Sailing Club 1930-1980 by Tom Vaughan (Moores and Mathes, London) the Three Rivers District Council website.I did change the picture of Rickmansworth in the right hand box because I don't really believe that it is a good image of Rickmansworth.

I added photographs to show how little the Batchworth lock has changed compared to the original picture. I added some extra local links and based any insertions on the wiki for Oxford which appears much more modern, reader-friendly and informative.

I added a section on notable residents- I hardly think you can object to some of the entries. All of the information added is verifiable- hence the additional extra links.

I'm not saying this as a young upstart, indeed I regularly do research for the Three Rivers and Watford Museums and have direct family ties to Rickmansworth since 1871.

My next steps would be to include information on the War Memorial, Basing House, The Priory, The Bowls Club etc. as the wiki as it stands does not give a complete reflection of Rickmansworth.

Should you have any comments to make, please use the talk page rather than simply undo any changes. It's not very helpful otherwise.

Oh, and I know Newcastle Emlyn very well to - I nearly married someone from Aberaeron whose grandparents still lived in NE.I had some great times there.

Best regards Elly3802 Elly3802 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Elly,

Before embarking on such lengthy copy-editing – for example, yesterday – Rickmansworth...

Before embarking on such lengthy copy-editing – for example, yesterday, Rickmansworth – you should address yourself to some of the basic rules of working on any Wikipedia article.

For example:

# Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead.

# Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.

# Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.

So much to learn, but it can be fun. Remember, it is better to "dip your toe in gently" at first!

With kind regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth,

Must admit that I'm now put off any form of editing! So much for, as you mention on your Talk page, "Be Bold"!

Looking at the Rickmansworth wiki, my thoughts which led me to my editing were:-

As I see it, mention is made of the cricket and hockey clubs, the tennis club (very familiar to me), the golf courses, William Penn (stangely he wasn't mentioned elsewhere or linked) Leisure facilities, and the water ski club, but to include the bowling club and famous sailing facilities (and clubs)etc would be wrong?

The wiki states "Rickmansworth Sports Club was the home of Rickmansworth Cricket Club" but this should be present tense.

Surely the Sub-Aqua club and the Ricky Road run should be included under "Sports" and Watersmeet is a Leisure facility/ events venue and should not be included in the subtitle?

I have no preference for any club/society in Rickmansworth.There are many social clubs in and around Rickmansworth and they should be given equal space.

I also note that 'footnotes' are used in the text for "Historic Industry" and yet no reference or accrediatation is given to William Page (editor) (1908). "Parishes: Rickmansworth". A History of the County of Hertford: volume 2. Institute of Historical Research. (Retrieved 31 March 2012).to which these footnotes apply - Plagiarism in it's truest sense?

Mention is made of Lord Anson, so I added other residents (Surely you can appreciate the Dukes Of Monmouth and the fact that Monmouths are buried in Rickmansworth?).Were you aware, for example, that David Urquhart's home 'Riverside' was famous for it's turkish bath (reputed to be the first private turkish bath in the country), attracting, amongst other, royalty?

The Aquadrome section refers to "quarries" (indicating solid stone) and "some of the stone" also suggesting, misleadingly, that this was solid stone, not the gravel that it actually was.

Wikilinks were used for several items (e.g. why a link to one river but not the other two?)

Rickmansworth is not the "home town" of Three Rivers District (which insults Abbot's Langley, South Oxhey etc) but it is the "administrative" town for Three Rivers. Nothing in the text provided an explanation of "Three Rivers", although the rivers are named.

The history section jumps about without following any specific topic so I presented it more logically.

Rickmansworth did not "begin to grow" in 1920s and 1930s - there was massive growth in Victorian times, - just look around the streets to see when then houses were built.

As such a great emphasis was placed on the rail networks, past and present, I included the wikilink to Rickmansworth Station.I can appreciate the rail information as my great-grandfather was Inspector of the Permanent Way and my uncle was civil engineer for British Rail, involved in the development of Euston.However, it does not follow throughand mention when the LNWR finally ceased to operate in Rickmansworth-certainly my mother used it to get to work and she's only 86 now.

Why is the M1 mentioned when it is over the other side of Watford and not even in Rickmansworth (should distance from the M1 be inserted)?

The link to "Local news site" just produces a link to Namesco, in turn providing links to local businesses.

All photos used were from WikiCommons or are my own and uploaded to WikiCommons.The picture of Rickmansworth just looked as if the High Street is a car park. so I replaced it with a photo showing the differing styles of homes. It was taken from the top of the tower of St Mary's church

Apologies if this seems to be petty but if these formats and sections are good enough for Oxford........It is not an attack but a justification of some of the editing.Perhaps you could consider the editing and give me some constructive feedback.
I understand that all external links to sports clubs/societies should be excluded (unless they are wikilinks)but some corrections are well overdue and essential, especially the plagiarism.

Best regards Elly3802 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to put you off editing Rickmansworth – or anything else, for that matter!

No time today to spend on Wikipedia, but thank you for the above. It would be fun to work on this as a team. What do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly in the future but not the next 2 weeks - 2 articles to write for a magazine, University assignment and normal 'caring' duties, as well as full-time work. But pleeeeeease sort out the references in the Historic Industry as this is serious plagiarism. The link I gave is correct but, so far, I am wobbly on inserting actual citations and linking to references.

Thanks and regards

'Speak' with you soon.

Elly3802 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...pleeeeeease sort out the references in the Historic Industry as this is serious plagiarism. The link I gave is correct but..."

I have done that...to each of that guy's footnote refs ... too many really, but we can sort that out later. I am reading your "possibly" as probably! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"*Rickmansworth is not the "home town" of Three Rivers District..."

Done Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have re-sited one of the reference links as the quote was including ,"now the site of Veolia Water". Have also added date to quoted population figure. I'm thinking that, perhaps, there should be a 'transport' section so that all the rail and motorway info could go into that (excepting Lord Ebury's railway). But that's for later.
I also have to thank you because, whilst researching and getting Wikilinks for the Eburys I came across a snippet which will be very useful in my next writing (not a Wiki!)
Elly3802 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I might have got the bug, but mainly on the research side! Lord Ebury's Railway...have you seen this...http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/rickmansworth_church_street/index.shtml which differs from the story that the line was taken over only 4 years after it opened. If I get a chance I'll check my editions of the local publications.
Regards
Elly3802 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Elly,

Well done you! ...for finding the railway link... just fascinating to read.

Definately "Yes", to a road and railway section. How about Rickmansworth Museum?

So you're "hooked", are you? I am very pleased. I'm glad you found that other bit of research too.

Did you notice that "we had visitors" yesterday evening? Look at the Rickmansworth View History page... not sure how we can date the population figure within the info' box... because normally you cannot fiddle around with their format – though I have had success editing one recently. I think I'll rewrite the Lead to accomodate it. When do we get the more recent census figures, I wonder. Do you know? (I believe the first figures appear in July)

Hope you have a good day. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: After your correction re- Violia Water, one of our "visitors", contribs)‎ removed your edit, I think by mistake, when taking out your date within the info' box. Gareth.

Hi,

I'm on lunch-break!

Took a look at the formatting for Oxford (who somehow is able to put a date to population figures). I don't have a chance to look at it tonight, as I really have to get my University Assignment done and submitted in the next couple of days and am nowhere near!

Good morning Ellie,

Thankyou for the (above) lunchtime missive! I fiddled about with it late last night... but to no avail. Perhaps you will fare better. What about the Violia edit? 'Speak' to you soon, Gareth.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In recognition of your many fine edits to a variety of articles, from popular culture to British geography and beyond. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Griffith-Jones. Just for context, I work at the Wikimedia Foundation, but I've been an English Wikipedian for much longer. The reason I wanted to make sure your edits were recognized with a barnstar is because we recently started looking at a list of people who'd made their 1,000th edit to articles, and your name was at the top of the list this week (April 5th, UTC time to be exact). Thanks again for contributing to the encyclopedia. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a splendid way to begin Good Friday!

I am delighted with your recognition of my editing Wikipedia over the past seven months.

Thank you,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you like it! Happy Good Friday indeed, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric F 's query

I believe the {{nowrap}} template might be better in this case since the non-breaking space would require a space between the parts of her last name, which is what's wrapping onto a new line. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The nowrap template should work, but the instructions are unclear on one point: would I be able to put the template at the beginning of the page and include a list of names there, or would each name require its own template. Keep in mind that the names are already nested within table template, and may (later) be nested within a collapse template. In other words, where would I use the template? Actually, the "non-breaking space" sounds intriguing, is that a character that looks like a space, but acts like a regular character? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The non-breaking space is normally used when a date... 7 April 2012 ... is prevented from splitting into two lines of text. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Invisible Children, Inc

I cannot make the following reference appear properly in the References section of the article, Invisible Children, Inc

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html

This is my effort...!

<ref>{{cite news |http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>

... N.B. It shows up as Ref. [25] at the end of the section titled Response.

Can somebody put me right, please? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. You forgot to add the url parameter.--GoP_T^C_{N 19:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  ... and I've added title and publisher parameters. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]}

<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html |title=Wife of Kony video director filmed running naked through streets says he was suffering from 'reactive psychosis' due to stress and exhaustion|publisher=Daily Mail|date=April 8, 2012 |accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>

Hello David,

Once again you have come to my rescue with amazing speed.

Thank you very much. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening GreatOrangePumkin,

Thank you very much for your amazingly fast response to my citing problem earlier this evening.

I would have replied earlier, but initially had mistakenly read your posting together with your (very attractive) signature as the first part of David's reply to me. He had not left a line break. It was only on going back to it just now that I realised my misunderstanding.

With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Url 'n' link

You can find more detailed information at Wikipedia:External links#How to link ...and
Help:URL if you're having trouble with the URL itself ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from me

I thought I would ask you about something. I've had to edit the page "Invisible Children Inc" quite heavily due to a lot of inaccuracies. If you compare the page before and after my edits, they give a totally different impression. Either it's been accidentally wrongly written or it's edited in a biased way on purpose. I'm not sure what to do now that it's been corrected, or even if anything needs to be done but I thought I'd ask you. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crzyclarks!

Have just had a quick scan. Do what I have just done!

I clicked on View history, scrolled down to the edit before your first edit – 14:37 hrs. March 30, 2012 – and clicked on the "radio" button and then hit "enter".

That shows the differences highlighted since you've been on the site, after the reverting edits by other users have taken their effect. You appear to have a problem with one particular editor, don't you?

How different is the right-hand side from how you would want it to be? If you are happy with it, just keep an eye on it. If you are not then edit the article towards the way you expect. Is this any help? Let me know!

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, that will work nicely. I guess I just need to keep a close eye on the page from now on. One more question, I added a link to a video of Jason Russell nude, and wrote in the article that it was him nude. The editor changed it to TMZ claimed it was him nude. Since it's clearly him and he's clearly nude, does it need the 'claimed' part? Crzyclarks (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but in my experience with some of these fellows, once they get "a bee in their bonnet" about something like that, they will keep on worrying at it "like a dog with a bone". You know it it is Russell, so does the other editor probably, but... they just enjoy the tussle. Best advice, leave it for 2/3 weeks minimum, and then try a revert.

BTW, Been going through the edits one by one since my first reply to you, so have quite a good understanding now. I have added Invisible Children, Inc to My Watchlist so will keep an eye on it for you. I will back you up whenever appropriate.

Kind wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks a lot. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that I had earlier read the Discussion page too. Well done, you!

Also, just been looking at the Jason Russell article – a re-direct created on March 8, this year. But I expect you knew that. Do you know much about him? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I just found that the Invisible Children page had a lot of inconsistencies, not just the Jason Russell meltdown part, so I started following the sources and changed the info to what the sources actually said. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse!

Hi! Gareth Griffith-Jones, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Wiki Browser user permission granted April 12, 2012

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - User has over 1000 edits in the Article Namespace

Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme,

Thank you for granting me permission to use the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser this morning.

Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!

Hello Tokyo Girl,

Thank you for the info' given just now re- the discussion going on. After a stormy introduction to each other, I would like to believe that we may now be friends. How about you? Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem - I absolutely have no problem with becoming friends here on Wikipedia! After all, I saw in your edit history that you've worked on the James Rollins articles and hey, anyone who is a fan of Rollins has got to have some pretty good taste! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Seen the result on the Charles Brokaw redirect. It was what you wanted, wasn't it? Knew we had some things in common. I have read all the Sigma Force novels in chronological order and looking forward to the next. Devil Colony did not get published here till early 2012. Also read more than half of the "stand- alone" books, eespecially liked Amazonia and Ice Hunt. How about you? Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that Amazonia is one of my favorites as well! There's just something about ruins in the middle of a jungle that's so exciting! I'm also a big fan of Scott Sigler (most of his books are free in their podcast formats), Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child, and Andy McDermott. I'm pretty much of the persuasion that as long as a book contains historical mysteries and people shooting at each other, I'm probably going to like it. XD Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to receive your list of authors the other day. Always good to have some recommendations. Here's one for you that I have just discovered. I am currently reading the 2010 novel, THE DEATH INSTINCT by JED RUBENFELD. Very good style, excellent English, gripping story. I shall certainly try to get hold of his first novel. He is an American lawyer/author and lives in New Haven, Connecticut. This is his second book. His first, called "The Interpretation of Murder" held the number 1 slot in the Sunday Times chart for seven weeks. They are published here in the UK by HEADLINE REVIEW, which is an Hatchette UK Company. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden message ... found

Hello Gareth. I hope you are well. I was wondering, have you found this yet: Wikipedia:WikiSpeak? Very useful. I find the illustrations particularly amusing. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin!

Brilliant ... thank you very much for leading me to it. The illustrations are rib-crackingly funny, and I believe you may have used some, haven't you? I did recognise two or three. I am sure there is a considerable amount of fun to be had, although I still remember your angry "Mrs."

Good to hear from you! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too was amazed by the resemblance. But I think that may be her younger, better-tempered sister. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris / St Denis

Hi,

Regarding your reversion here, you may wish to read previous discussions here, here and here that differentiate between Paris and St Denis and you will note a number of rugby related articles on Wikipedia i.e. here and if you look even to the IRB with the final and semi final they certainly make a distinction between Paris i.e. Parc des Princes and the Stade de France in St Denis. To finish St Denis is in the suburbs of Paris, that doesn't mean it is a part of Paris and should also be noted that they are in different departments i.e. Seine-Saint-Denis (93) and Paris Metropolitan Area (75). The use of the word suburb in the St Denis article does not imply it is a part but just that it is a residential area adjacent to Paris as in the correct use of the word. Regards. 137.138.79.38 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However, all BBC television broadcasters say Paris, as do journalists in newspaper copy. Your comparison with my place of birth is inaccurate. Penarth is not a suburb.

I will agree to your wishes: shall not make that edit again – that was the first and last time.

Just as a point of interest, you know who I support. Am I correct in assuming you are a France supporter?

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no France is up there with the teams I rarely support, I'm just a Brit who happens to play tight head (like yourself) in France. Anyway thanks for the response, I'll let you do the change if you wish as IPs will most probably just be reverted. Cheers 137.138.79.38 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So ... I would guess an England supporter..? What do think about Gethin Jenkins joining the other Welsh boys?

No, I keep my word. First and and only time.

I registered before my first edit last summer. I would recommend it to you. There are many advantages, and I haven't come across any disadvantages yet. I even use my own name. If you were to do so, please let me know.

All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, not again I've been an admin and edited for quite a few years but quit a year back. Now I just edit from random IPs, editing articles and staying out of the usual wiki politics. Gethin is an amazing player and a shoe in for the lions. Cheers 137.138.79.38 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I did have a go at putting your edit back in, but it was too far back to do it surreptitiously, so had to "undo" my revision. I think I would be noticed if I did a straightforward edit, and duly criticised! Oh, have you seen your userbox ... thought I'd turn you Wikipedian blue. As I said in the edit summary, remove it if you feel it should not be there. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning dancer

This is a great way to visualize her turning in both direction at once – just put a letter on the leg on the floor!

The illusion derives from the lack of visual cues for depth. For instance, as the dancer's arms move from viewer's left to right, it is possible to view her arms passing between her body and the viewer (that is, in the foreground of the picture, in which case she would be circling counter-clockwise on her right foot) and it is also possible to view her arms as passing behind the dancer's body (that is, in the background of the picture, in which case she is seen circling clockwise on her left foot).

When she is facing to the left or to the right, her breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing, although there is ambiguity in which leg is which. However, as she moves away from facing to the left (or from facing to the right), the dancer can be seen (by different viewers, not by a single individual) facing in either of two directions. At first, these two directions are fairly close to each other (both left, say, but one facing slightly forward, the other facing slightly backward) but they become further and further away from each other until we reach a position where her ponytail and breasts are in line with the viewer (so that neither her breasts nor her ponytail are seen so readily). In this position, she could be facing either away from the viewer or towards the viewer, so that the two positions, two different viewers could see, are 180 degrees apart. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

One interesting thing about this illusion is the shadow of a foot passing right-to-left at the very bottom of the frame. Based on the shadow's movement, it can only be coming from the dancer's right foot. Therefore, based on this visual clue only, the dancer must be spinning on her left foot. Strangely though, even with this in mind, it is still possible to visualize the dancer spinning the opposite way, on her right foot, admittedly aided by the addition of the "R" in this case. Just thought I'd point this out. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is very observant of you. You are of course, correct, especially in the latter part. Thank you for that. Just as a point of interest – I am curious, and pleased – how did you come to find my talk page? Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once one notices the small foot shadow, either conciously or subconciously, your mind interprets a light source originating from behind the dancer. This also firmly establishes in your brain that the larger shadow of the other leg is also being caused by the same light source. This is why it is very difficult for some people to see the dancer rotating the other direction, if there are no other clues (although it is still possible). The inclusion of the letters, the R in the lower frame, and the way it disappears as if being eclipsed by a leg, is a very strong visual clue which overrides the brains interpretation of the light source.

To answer your question. Commented at DBigXray's talk page a while back and left it on my watchlist. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather

In a recent edit – to the page, The Godfather – you changed one or more words from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Terence7 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Terence7,

Point taken, understood, and accepted... to be frank, I appreciate your advice and promise to adhere to the above criteria. As a Welshman who loves well-written and well-spoken English, I have to confess to preferring British English spelling. But, having said that, I read many novels by U.S. authors and achieve enormous enjoyment from the majority that I choose.

I know nothing about you, and would like a brief note confirming that there are no bad feelings. With kind regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bad feelings at all. Thanks for your note. As you might guess this is a recurring issue on Wikipedia. (The message I posted was actually just a standard template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-lang )

Happy editing. Terence7 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm still a new boy, and frankly, at the age I am, (70 next Spring) I need all the help I can get with the formatting. With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

Hello JTBX (talk),

I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am with your editing of the Plot summary in The Godfather article this afternoon (I'm in the UK... where are you?) and to let you know that I have put the paragraphs back as they were to facilitate comparison with earlier edits. This may help to avoid any possible hysterical reverting of your excellent work. I have also made a few minor edits. Have a look! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Just doing my job. I trust you know better about this in terms of why you changed the paragraphs back etc. JTBX (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I now understand why you moved them, kinda tired, sorry. I am also from the UK. Thanks again JTBX (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather ... again!

Hello RepublicanJacobite,

Please take a look at The Godfather. You probably do not want to get involved, I know. Some stranger has made close on 200 edits over the past two days uninterrupted. I have just e-mailed MarnetteD. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I will take a look. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast response. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email. I have to admit that my eyes kinda glazed over after checking a few of the edits and I just let things go. You might post a thread at the filmproject talk page to get more eyes on the situation. You could also go to the editor and ask him/her to at least use edit summaries to explain what they are doing. The next couple of days are going to be a little hectic offwiki but I will try to take a closer look, I am glad that you also contacted RJ. He will do a good job checking things. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just taken your advice and posted this on both project sites:

Urgent! The Godfather ... again!

Take a look at The Godfather. A new editor has made close on 200 uninterrupted edits over the past two days, and is still doing so. No edit summaries. Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discernable problem with his edits, or are you just objecting to him not supplying edit summaries? Ultimately edit summaries are a courtesy not a requirement, so as a Project we cannot really address that. As for the edits themselves, well if there is an actual problem with them then just revert him. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to determine whether there is a discernible problem when there are so many edits in a row, and no edit summaries to explain what he is doing. Yes, edit summaries are a courtesy, but they are especially important if one is going to make wholesale changes to an article. Gareth's intention in bringing this matter here is to get other film project editors to take a look at the edits and see if they pass muster. I think that is an appropriate step. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I had the same initial response as MarnetteD, the eyes glaze over looking at so many continuous edits. On first glance, there does not seem to be anything obviously or substantively wrong with his edits and additions. It is more a matter of his making so many edits in a row, with no edit summaries, and without discussion, that it is very difficult to follow what he is, which is precisely why edit summaries would help. A centralized discussion, either on the article talk page, or at the film project, could be helpful, especially if the editor in question is aware and takes part in said discussion. Thanks for keeping your eyes on it, Gareth. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re- your postings earlier today on the WikiProject – both subjects – excellent!

Regarding this new editor, I have followed your advice and posted a warning on his/her talk page, and opened a new section on the Godfather Discussion page.

Thank you very much for all your input. Best regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and say it looks like positive steps have been taken in this situation even by the new editor. So thanks again for your vigilance and for going to the community to get input. Also congrats on Wales performing the Grand Slam in the recent Six Nations tourney. Here in the US BBC America carries a few games - though I would like to see more - and it was exciting to see your team perform so well. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thank you for your good advice, and thank you very much for your charming message this evening.

With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, Wrath X is still busy editing The Godfather – after a brief respite – and is catching you up fast. You have 178 recorded and he has 155 (not counting 48 on The Godfather II) but he/she is leaving Edit Summaries every time, thanks to you. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a group effort, and I am always glad to see new and experienced editors working together. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny's death

I don't remember the facts on one aspect and thought you might. My memory was that the phone call to Sonny that lured him to the toll booth was not about a real attack on Connie, but was just a device to play on his Achilles' heel. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog...

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was great! Will now rewatch "II" & "III" for the countless time.

Okay, the sequence of events:

Heavily pregnant Connie answers the phone to a female who says, "Tell Carlo, I can't see him tonight."
She tells him that his dinner is ready. He says that he doesn't want it.
Fearsome row ensues ... Connie smashes crockery ... he gives her a dreadful beating.
Carlo leaves. Connie telephones. Sonny, wild with temper, races off alone ...

Must be a setup: Ambush waiting at the toll booth.

Oh, and it is 1946 (not '45) mentioned at the time of the attack on Vito. I have made that edit now.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, but I'm not clear on one thing: how do you know it's a setup? I thought that they were trying to lure him out to the toll booth, but what was the actual plan? Did Carlo beat her for the purpose of getting him to come to her aid? That seems like a dubious plan. Thanks. (And feel free to answer here -- I monitor your talk page changes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I think that it was pre-planned, is how else would they be expecting Sonny to drive through the toll booth at that particular time. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was extreme. I suppose the phone call was the setup and the fight was worse than Carlo anticipated, but achieved the required result.

Since posting the 1946 edit, some anon has added an exec. prod., Robert Evans to the info' box. I shall delete it. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How else would they have known? Okay, that is evidence they were listening in on a phone call. Or were told by Carlo that Connie called him (if he knew). So yes that is the key question. Or, what did Carlo do that betrayed Sonny? Same question in a different form. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the novel here, but a long time since I read it. See if that helps. Shall do that this morning. I agree with your analysis, and, in my opinion, was probably explained in the filming, but left on the editor's floor. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the book is no help at all: Carlo does not leave their home. Is very drunk and sleeps. Then, after a few hours, Connie phones her parent's home intending to speak to Hagan or her mother, not wanting to speak to Santino. Her mother answers, but Sonny takes the phone from her.

So, the "only possible explanation" of how Barzini's men were already waiting at the toll booth – that he awoke and heard his wife's telephone call, is null and void. They did not have enough time to arrange the ambush. Furthermore, the war of the Five Families is regarded to be over at this point, so Sonny and Hagan were not anticipating a setup. Yet at the end of the novel, Michael tricks Carlo into telling him that he did inform Barzini ... over to you ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Is this "narrative art"? Notice they separate the revelation that Carlo betrayed Sonny from the events. So at the moment I write it off to a little plot hole that they couldn't figure out how to close. Still, I'm thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only with your approval of course, I am considering copying this to Talk:The Godfather. What do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's fine. Thanks for asking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather trilogy

I wanted to mention that, since you love watching the film so much, I believe you would enjoy Coppola's commentary, especially to the first film. He mentions so many interesting things about production. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I do. My three are the 25th Anniversary Editions the wide-screen versions, on good old VHS video tapes. The commentaries are great.

Good to hear from you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity

Do you remember this (above)?

You seemed to be "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.

We watch with great interest. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still am, and still go around plots making sure they are concise and tidy, but this film is of course different, and very long. If you have read my draft please consider it, as way too many details were being left out at the expense of sacrificing notable information. --JTBX (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was heads up on this last night, but thought you were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film Award

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive, hereby award Gareth Griffith-Jones the WikiProject Film Award for his valued contributions to WikiProject Film. For your continued vigilance and improvement of The Godfather Trilogy articles. Awarded 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratz JTBX (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wonderful life

Hello!

What a lovely surprise. Thank you so much! I am delighted.

We have had a wet and windy day here, and just watched the great James Stewart in the 1946 "It's a wonderful life". Then came up to check My watchlist to find your award and ... it really is a wonderful life!

Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

It is well-deserved. Keep up the good work! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather Effect

I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this 'Brit' has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know who it is, but I don't know many editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be alarmed!

Oh, I have just worked it out ... so it was an edit summary ... I don't know why either of you couldn't/wouldn't tell me that. Remember! The article is what matters, and it will continue to be a work in progress. You have done a sterling job, and deserve a big thank you. I am anxious that this does not get acrimonious ... there is far too much of that on Wikipedia. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Where's all the Godfather stuff gone? By the way my email had to be updated to so you better send what you had to send again, sorry! JTBX (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be alarmed! It is all still on my page – up near the top – next to earlier Godfather material. Been deleting 'stuff' I don't want. Can't be bothered with archiving – who would bother to trawl through archives? Wanted to speed up access to my page. I had reached 324,759 bytes on April 19. Still more to discard, but def. no Godfather or Sopranos. Read El Dude's page earlier this evening (he helped me out earlier this year on The Sopranos, so he's on My Watchlist) Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really use e-mail for communication, I'm afraid, unless it's business/organisation related, so I don't how that system works on here. But yes, I am going through to administrator resolution now. I have a copy of the draft saved in Word which I edit offline in case it's ever lost. JTBX (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that. It can be useful though if you want say something sensitive and not be seen by any person on Wikipedia. Don't be alarmed! – everything is still there in the history. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you & Gareth really going to put up with more of User:RC's bullshit? He acts like he owns these film articles and edit wars to get his way. There is no exception in WP:3RR for consensus, remember that. I'm done trying to reason with him. If/when you file a report against him, please let me know so I can weigh in, to confirm his issues of WP:TE and WP:OWN. El duderino ^(abides) 05:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Will liaise with JTBX, and get back to you. I don't know if you remember,but you came to my aid earlier this year regarding the info'box on The Sopranos for which I am grateful. Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted on El_duderino's talk page (got a tb from him too) Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, going to do it now, sorry for the late response. Going to just read through the policies now and go to resolution. JTBX (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, go to Elduderino's page, Ive replied there. JTBX (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see that JTBX has undertaken an effort to slander me behind my back. Sorry to drag you into it. The facts are that I'm working with both him and El Duderino and they don't accept that we have to meet halfway on some things. As you know, Gareth, I'm trying to improve the article. Although in the case of The Godfather I didn't accept all of JTBX's edits, I incorporated some and suggested areas where I agreed with him that we could make some improvements. That is normal editing. Not all proposals are accepted and editors have to communicate on these matters. Both of them seem to be saying that it's all or nothing. El Duderino's position is untenable. JTBX has good ideas and I have said so. So, again, thanks for your fine attitude and I'm sorry if you feel like you're in the middle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. All along I have been anxious to avoid anything approaching an edit war and the intervention of others. I go back to the beginning of the month and the action I took then to prevent a wholesale takeover by Wrath X. Together, you Ring, and I, rescued the article, and soon after that, JTBX became involved, and we three worked really well together, as a team, for quite some time.

As I see it,

the breakdown in cooperation between the two of you began when the idea of another draft of the plot summary was aired. Because I could not find the origin of this alternative approach, this confused me as you both now know. I know now that it was an edit summary made by Ring and addressed to JTBX, and not posted on the discussion page of The Godfather.
we should continue to merge the two editions and make an attempt to revitalise the feeling of a group effort that was present until recently.
when that is achieved, I should like to think that we three can move on and edit II and III together.

After all, it is a work in progress. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is already agreement on some areas that deserve improvement on the plot summary. And I have incorporated as much of JTBX's suggestions, as well. To me, this is normal give and take. I will remain optimistic, and thank you again for your time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, he is just playing semantics again. Look through his entire history on his talk, one revert warning from an adminstrator after another. He says this but the fact is I incorporated the edits he wanted, such as "riddled with machine gun fire" etc, not the other way around. He just reverts. He will probably add some things from my plot now to appear as if to get along. Nonsense. JTBX (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe me when I say that it is better to try to cooperate and discuss than it is to war with one another. Now that the air has been cleared, and everyone is talking, we will continue to discuss rather than edit and revert. We are a good team. We are passionate. That is good for the article, and the next, and the next. It is the only way. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the {tb} alerts, Gareth. But I'm through trying to discuss the issues with RC. He's a stubborn mule and only seems interested in getting his way and arguing about it. As soon as I attempted a compromise at No Country, (see my post which starts with "Fine..") he accuses me of changing the argument, terms, 'subject' whatever. His replies to me and others there are filled with condescension and I want no more part of it. El duderino ^(abides) 21:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, Dude, there was already a compromise in place between me and Star. Not that you have to accept it, of course, but don't accuse me of not wanting to compromise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestion for The Godfather dispute?

This is now a 3RR complaint at WP:AN3#User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: ). Do you have any suggestion for how to resolve this? Full protection? Perhaps an RfC? It does not seem that WP:3RR has been violated. The AN3 report is long and meandering and admins may not have the patience to read all of it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ EdJohnston I had hoped we would not be in this position. I have tried to be both mediator and counsellor. I do not require "full protection" – both users are responsible editors whose only fault, if they have one (and I do not believe it a fault) is passion. I have only been involved with editing Wikipedia seriously since last September and my looking up the RfC page for the first time fills me with dread that this is just going to escalate into far too much.

Believe it or not – and this is also addressed to JTBX and Ring Cinema – I continue to expect this episode to be resolved in the manner I describe above, and we will work together in the future. That is unlikely if any one party is intransigent.

Therefore, I would recommend a voluntary absence of 14 days, to cool down, and I will hold the fort as caretaker and maybe do a little merging where I feel it will not provoke either editor when they return. They should leave the article and talk page alone, out of sight, in my opinion.

I hope this helps. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JTBX

I have put all my Godfather sections together in date order here.
Please have a look!
The last one is from the admin you have involved. I have replied to him. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gareth, my view is that it's unfair to me to pretend I'm guilty of anything just because JT filed a complaint and accused me of bad faith. How does he climb down from that in a way that allows him to work with me? If he doesn't want to collaborate with other editors that is his decision but it would be a mistake to ignore that. For that reason, I think it would be more fruitful to restrict ourselves to the Talk page until we agree mutually to return to editing the article page. Do you think that has any merit? -- Ring Cinema (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gareth, please Gareth, please, someone has figured out what I really am like Look you can keep doing this with a strop to look innocent, but the fact is, from the start of you registering on Wikipedia over 3 years ago, you have gotten into conflict over conflict about how you deal with others on Wikipedia, in relation to films especially, insulting adminstrators, and have been blocked multiple times. Somehow, you keep comign back. Seriously it is not hard, just take a look through his entire talk history. End of story, as he has dealt with me in the same way. I have already listened to you, which is why I had a draft on the talk page in the first place, to resolve issues, but you do not accept it. Simple. Stop this nonsense. JTBX (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I would even go further to say that at the moment I see no point in continuing discussion with him, which is why I encouraged JBTX to pursue the DR himself after he informed me of his similar argument. I am now on a self-imposed voluntary interaction-ban, of sorts. Meaning: I do not intend to address him directly anymore. And if he is reading this, I would like for him to do the same. I have no intention of rehashing what happened at the relevant talkpage thread at No Country for Old Men (film) which is what he is trying to do -- meanwhile, re-framing it to fit his own distorted purview, as JBTX alludes to above.
@Gareth, I can appreciate your positive tone and attempts to mediate, but I disagree with your assessment above that the air has been cleared. User:RC has not acknowledged his part in the escalation of these two disputes. I.e, he seems to be saying he's done nothing wrong. For example, apparently he still thinks he reached a compromise with the other editor (StarofAmman) at No Country -- when, as I see it, Star simply kept changing the content until RC stopped reverting -- all the while neither of them adding to the talkpage. That's not compromise. El duderino ^(abides) 08:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, she made a change I accepted. Then I went to her talk page and told her it was fine by me. That is what a compromise looks like: someone makes a proposal that the other side agrees is good enough. So, yeah, you have confirmed that Star and I made our compromise. I'm not sure why you don't recognize it when you are looking at it, but okay. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have ever been this honest. "She made a change I accepted. Then I went to her talk page and told her it was fine by me." WP:OWN. --JTBX (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ EdJohnston Hi, you left a comment on El duderino's page stating that we should try RfC? how does this work, and if you could advise, what is the best procedure to file a complaint that is very long, complex and detailed? If discussion and so on has already been tried and if the user is a known edit warrior as well in conflict with other users is RfC on a user ideal? Thank you. JTBX (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to simplify your request. If you make an RfC about 20 things nobody may bother to respond. If you actually are hoping to find consensus it doesn't help to come to my page and badmouth the other editor. You might consider making a new draft of the article in your user space and then ask for comments. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At 04:39, April 25 2012‎ (UTC) Admin EdJohnston protected The Godfather: Edit warring / Content dispute: WP:AN3#User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected). It expires 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston Thank you for your time spent on this matter. Not what I was hoping for, but, on reflection, it is a sound choice of action. It will at least appear to be a birthday present to me when editing may be resumed on the twentyeighth. @ Ring Cinema Yes! Why don't we do that (see above: 03:31 hrs. today!) – more or less what I was intending . @ JTBX Your youthful enthusiasm is infectious. I think we enjoy working alongside each other. This will get better, trust me! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El duderino I appreciate what you wrote to me yesterday but I would like you to read this section please! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I posted there and I'll be watching your page -- no need to put tags here when there's a new response. And just fyi, I may not post there again because I really don't want to interact directly with RC. El duderino ^(abides) 08:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fully understand. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, you are a well established and excellent editor to work with, and of course I would love to continue working on the sequels and so on, as well as any future projects, but you have to understand as duderino has pointed out, there is no point talking to RC anymore. If you want try something then post the draft we worked on and improve it, into the article. Lets see what he does then. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JTBX Thank you and, “Yes”, we will continue. I am sad at how it has turned out; even I am affected by the admin's action, in that nobody has access to the article. Absurd! We three must use the talk page more from now on. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

I've just seen that the article is now protected because of the dispute. As a result I may leave a message on the Godfather talk page, though I have already stated what I have wished and edited the draft there with your help. JTBX (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, since you, RC and I are the only ones editing the article, then I would like to ask your actual opinion on the matter. Do you think our draft should replace the one in the article, and have us work from there? Without your agreement I will have to solely report RC, but all of that can be avoided provided you help this consensus. As a result both of us can notify EdJohnston, who will then allow it to be placed in the article and remove protection. At least that is the way I see it after speaking with EJ. JTBX (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No'!' -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

Alright here is what I am going to do: In this cool off period until the article is unprotected, I will reason out on the talk page of the article, why I think the plot should be included, as I have began to do so. I suggest you go there and see, as well as improving it. I request for your help Gareth, if possible, editing the draft and responding. Ring Cinema does not appear to have any recent editing history on the subsequent Godfather films so I don't expect a conflict there. I have already begun cutting the plot on II in a saved draft offline and will paste it into the talk page of Part II first, and request your help with it. I did not reveal this until now because I know Ring-Cinema would have made his move there and he hasn't yet, but if he does... know that it was because I just stated this and he probably wishes to spur another conflict. Okay? I will then return to Godfather Part I, to see if issues have ironed out. If conflict arises again without an actual provided good reason as before I will file RfC on the film. If I see it as more serious, I will file an RfC on the user with help from El duderino and others who may have faced similar issues. --JTBX (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JTBX I read your last night's posting a couple of hours ago. Been walking my dog round the lakes ... this is when I do my best thinking. Will get back to you later this morning. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page again, I finished this task. --JTBX (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on the Godfather talk page ... well done! ... a lot of conscientious effort and well worth reading. I am still debating in my mind how to approach our return to the article. Much depends upon your relationship with Ring. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming serious

Have you seen "No Country" today? This is becoming serious. Also his attempt to involve MarnetteD | Talk I think he probably got the idea of doing that from my talk page ... see this I've been following The Godfather talk with dismay.

Re- his plot draft:

Having edited the first paragraph yesterday, I have just had a go at the second. It now reads thus:

Drug baron Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo (Al Lettieri), backed by the Tattaglia family, asks Vito for investment and protection through his political connections, but Vito declines and voices his disapproval of drug dealers. His enforcer, Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) is killed when sent to spy on them. Sollozzo attempts to assassinate Vito. His eldest son, Sonny (James Caan) takes command. Sollozzo kidnaps Hagen, suggesting he should persuade Sonny to accept his deal. Whilst the Corleone family discuss the situation, they receive a fish in Brasi's vest confirming he sleeps with the fishes.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, like everyone else, edit the article.

I just wanted to bring his draft of the plot in line with our thinking. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I already edited the second paragraph in the article. The chance that he's going to be anything but a nuisance is about equal to zero. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying, and clearly failing, to pour some olive oil on the boiling water. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JT can decide to be productive, or he can decide to be destructive. For The Godfather, we're fine. We'll proceed on the basis of unanimity. I don't want you to be in the middle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And apparantly I do not know what Consensus means. From the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Which is what I have been trying to do.

No Country for Old Men I am not disrupting the article, only improving it. I did not use personal attacks, that is simply a falsfication. I am not violating any consensus, there is simply one on the plot which mentioned reducing detail and improving it, and which is what I am doing. I see it needs to be improved more and trying to be productive, but you have continually reverted my edits. Please stop. If you have suggestions, take them to the talk page. --JTBX (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)The fact that you took my edits to No Country as a disruption illustrates my point perfectly. You took it as another attack, when I was simply editing to improve, because you do not own the article. "Our way of thinking" Gareth, shame on you for acting as a neutral partner but simply rolling over for Ring. I contacted MarnetteD and others as part of a wider consensus and going through The Godfather history to see who else had been editing the article, so that is wrong now? Its called Rfc too and following Wikipedia policy. WP:PLOTSUM I expected better, since you would rather leave in details such as "sleep with the fishes" over Peter Clemenza killing Paulie and so on. But which I chose to keep as part of the consensus. SO so many problems like this with the current summary. Obviously Gareth you want it to remain Ring, you and me, while trying to act like a neutral partner but really just pulling me along to Ring's side. But that will never happen. Ring has been caught for the edit warrior he is. --JTBX (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's inaccurate. I'm editing, not warring. I proposed we edit on the basis of unanimity; JTBX rejected that and violated the admin's terms. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buon compleanno

Happy birthday, Gareth! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shirt58 in Tasmania,

Thank you for the birthday greeting! How on Earth did you know ... ? Best regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, Just clicked on the link. Didn't notice it on first look. Great. I have all their records – 45's and LP's – all bought on release in the sixties. You clever devil!

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dear Mr Griffith-Jones.

My husband and I pass on our best wishes on the occasion of your birthday. I have a special affection for the people of Wales, not only because I am of the "Dog fancy" of Welsh Corgis, but also because my son is also the current Prince of Wales, and his favourite movie is The Godfather. I commissioned the Master of the Queen's Music to write a special piece of music for birthdays for my loyal Welsh subjects. Here it is, as performed by the Royal Corgi Choir.

--Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth58 (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, (Mrs.Betty Windsor ... indeed!) I am lost for words. My first dog was a Pembrokeshire Corgi. I remain, Ma'am, your ever humble servant, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for earlier corgi news. And my first dog was described by our family Vet as a "Glenorchy Terrier", a possibly rather elegant shorthand for "any one of a short-haired, terrier-like small to medium sized dogs of no fixed breed endemic to the the northern suburbs of Hobart" :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do hope the left calf isn't too scarred. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like in a number of the Bond films, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is the culprit. After his nefariousness in White bikini of Ursula Andress and Justin Bieber's hair I WP:WATCHLIST'd a number of the pages he edited, simple as that. Oh, hang on, this was about The Godfather. It's on my watchlist, because... er, I dunno, but it is. (ps: leg is fine, elderly corgi bite healed up months ago!)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me a lot of entertainment and puzzlement since April 28. We'll keep in touch, I trust. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday mate

I realised it was your birthday. Regards. JTBX (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your greeting! All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make contact, and to thank you for your kind birthday greeting.

The talk page looks very different this morning. Copy has been removed.

BTW, re- your recent "El Dude"'s talk page comment, I do not have any agenda.

Best wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have returned to the article to edit the plot summary this evening. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit: Yes, and look at the history. A User Chaheel made an improvement which I had already accomplished in the draft, it hurts me to see that editors are trying to improve the article, but Ring offers nothign but reverts. I also suggest you check out the talk page. JTBX (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JTBX What ridiculous things you say about Wikipedian co-editors. Articles are never finished, they remain "works in progress", and if you have not appreciated that yet, you should go away and come back when you have grown up! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, Gareth Griffith-Jones, from User:Martinevans123 - Hope you had a nice day!

Yes, thank you, and then finished up mediating in an edit war, would you believe? BTW did you ever get to Tasmania? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... but you have to say that it is odd about this shirt geezer [see section immediately above this!] -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite baffling. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather II

@ JTBX What a ridiculous thing to do to a Wikipedian article ... you should go away and come back when you have grown up! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

You cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from the plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have been doing – editing it privately on Word.
Be reasonable! How can other editors compare your version with the established summary? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help me improve this! I cut it down to 1,300 words from the bulky 2,500 or whatever it was...too big! --JTBX (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert? JTBX (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you cannot reduce in one swoop, 6,092 bytes, from a plot summary. You are courting with disaster. I saw what you had done , and reverted your revision within five minutes. I know what you have been doing – editing it privately on Word. Be reasonable! How can other editors compare your version with the established summary? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you immediately brought this to Ring's attention? And yes, you are allowed to export and edit on Word to avoid multiple edits to an article. What are you trying to imply? In the coming reports which I am now constructing on Ring, I may also include you for your Meat-Puppetry and Twinkle abuse. Consider that not a warning, but an observation. Other editors can easily compare the summary by clicking on its previous versions, it is you and Ring that are not being reasonable. JTBX (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be friendly after that horrible episode, I tried to reach out to you for your help in Part II having already completed getting rid of unneeded wording, but there you go, running off to Ring immediately. I think I have found out as much I as I need to know. JTBX (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he brought it to my attention because I am reasonable, easy to work with, listen to others, keep my word, and have good style. Nothing he could say about you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HA! is that a joke? is this reply [3] an example of you being reasonable or easy to work with? Judging from your interactions on various talkpages, you are clearly none of those things. Your self-delusion is astounding. 98.92.188.200 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lurker

@ 98.92.188.200 (talk) So, why post on my Talk page (Section:- The Godfather II) – last night, twice – at similar times to that on the RJ's Talk page?

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life (1946 James Stewart film)

HotCat

It's a Wonderful Life‎ (1946 James Stewart film) This evening, I reverted an edit by Lobo512 (talk):(removed Category:Films set in the 1940s using HotCat) – My edit summary reads: Wrong! World War II finishes (1945) during the story of this film.

Surely, these quasi-automated revisions may cause many incorrect deletions and should be curbed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Gahh, this is such a minor thing we're "edit warring" over. But I feel the need to persist since I know I am right. ;) If you click on the category page, right at the top there is a line that says: "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1940s, but which were produced at a later date." All the "films set in" categories say this. It's quite clear that a film can't be "set in" a decade that it was made in...that's just when it was made. Otherwise thousands of films from this decade would have to go in a category "set in the 2010s". Which wouldn't be very useful! So the category on IaWL definitely needs to be removed, it's misleading and suggests it wasn't made in the 1940s. --Lobo (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big apology to: Lobo (talk) You are correct; I am wrong.

What about "fantasy" film ... surely not ... anyway I removed that category last night. What do you think? __ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category confusion

Hi Lobo! I am not in any conflict with you over this ... I understood immediately after reading your first edit summary that your revision was right. My subsequent editing did not include a revert of yours. Please check. Kind regards, --Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

00:36 It's a Wonderful Life‎ (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) (removed Category:American fantasy films using HotCat)

I would not have considered IaWL a "fantasy" film, would you?

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, apologies! I didn't actually check your edit and now I'm feeling very sheepish. ;) as for it being a fantasy film, I think that's just about appropriate, due to the last half hour. IMDB also lists it as fantasy. Lobo (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your email. When I wrote "gahh" I just meant this: [4]. But is your name really Gareth Griffith-Jones then? That's amazing, that's like THE most Welsh name imaginable. --Lobo (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I agree that HotCat is a bit rubbish, the way it doesn't let you give an explanation for your actions. I won't use it again unless its for obviously uncontentious additions. --Lobo (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really is

You make me laugh – that's good! If you want the whole background, have a read of the first part of my User page!

Actually, when writing my earlier response, I might have included that my one and only neice is in your age group ... expect you can see what I was wondering.

I had never used HotCat before. Agree with you about not being given the chance to add your own edit summary. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To ... he knows who

I thought you had intended keeping away from this page ... that's what you promised, anyway. I would be much obliged if you were to follow your own advice. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newport is 12 miles (19 km) from Cardiff

Newport is 12 miles (19 km) from Cardiff. Please see my Newport edit summary earlier this morning.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning for Onepebble

Hi. I stumbled across your warning on Onepebble's talk page when I was checking some of his/her edits in Huggle. But the user's edit to Wales doesn't look like vandalism. Why do you think that it is? --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you take a look at the previous Edit summary by a fellow WikiProject Wales editor, FruitMonkey -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The images were placed in that order to prevent clumping and white space. Reverting."

Not sure how that is relevant. Onepebble's edit still doesn't seem like vandalism, even if it does cause "clumping and whitespace". It seems to be a good faith effort to improve the article, so not vandalism. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. First ask yourself, why did he attempt the revision?

One has to assume that he was first reading the article.

What was wrong with its layout? – Nothing!

Then why did he go to Edit?

After his alterations, did he have a look to see the results? And did he then undo his editing? – Clearly not, unless he approved of his mess-up of the article, in which case, it is a form of vandalism in my book.

If you read my warning to him carefully, you will notice that I modified the template's message considerably and softened it to be constructive rather than confrontational. Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, I've tried to find where in his version of the article the formatting was messed up, but I can't find it. I'm sure that browser or screen resolution could have an effect on that sort of thing, so can you help me out? ST47 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ ST47 The man to answer this is, of course, FruitMonkey. He made the revert. But I compared the two versions and Onepebble had altered para breaks and repositioned images.

Regards,

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This evening, I posted the following on Onepebble' talk page:

Hello Onepebble, Just a line to thank you for the incredible amount of good editing since you began on May 1. With regard to my note above, what I meant to write was, " ... at Wales. Your edits here may, to others, appear to constitute ... They have been reverted by another editor." Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess this is resolved then. Thanks ST47 and Gareth. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Rollback

Hi, this is just to let you know that I've granted you the rollback tool and responded to your email. I'm so sorry for inconveniencing you! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If you need help with anything or have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See WP:RBK, WP:VAN if you haven't already seen them. Twinkle is also a good one to have as well as your rollback to warn and report users. When I rollback I near enough always use Twinkle to give a quick warning and find it useful. --Chip123456 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Keilana Thank you. I shall not forget. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Chip123456 Thank you for your interest. I already have the first two WP:s on my watchlist for easy reference. Thank you for the tip re- Twinkle to give a warning – good advice. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sock puppet?

(Monday) Good evening Excirial,

Thank you for your helpful reply. I shall proceed with extreme caution. All excellent advice about using the keyboard will be taken on board. Hope your weekend break exceeded your expectations! I have every confidence in you to know that you would not have shown any bias. Keep well! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Tuesday) Good evening Excirial,

I made a revision this morning, and on visiting the IP's Talk page, saw your warning of April 30. A added a short warning below yours. Are the two editors on this 'diff' page, one and the same? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

It is quite likely, given the fact that the IP starts with 86. and because the edits are to a page few others edit on. It seems to be mostly a case where an editor forgot to log into his or her account. Techically taken the account was blocked that day, and based on the timestamp the block was present another 30 minutes or so on the time the edit was made. But well, seeing the edit was made two days ago i don't think any action is required (I like to think this was just a mistake). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Friday) Good evening Excirial,

I have never been one to leave 'loose ends' and when I noticed an edit summary on my watchlist, stating " (Hardly vandalism, and I'm not a sockpuppet.)", I investigated further. To that effect, I have pursued the above in a friendly way ( if you are interested you will see my posts on this page ... olive branch ... ) and received this from the user this afternoon:-

No worries

I kind of presumed that was what happened. Large parts of 86.**.**.** are British Telecom's dynamic IPs, and BT is used by a huge proportion of British internet users, so it's easy enough to confuse. 86.** IP (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go there, tell me what you think of my "template", which I made up ready for when I mess up using Huggle.

With best wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Athan

Want to collaborate with this? Castleton is in the area! More info on the landmarks at here and here. Will add more tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doctor,

Thank you for asking me to be involved. I shall certainly try to help as I do know St Athan. Actually this Castleton is in the Vale of Glamorgan. MyCastleton is in what I still call Monmouthshire. But, no matter. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 87

Honestly? an IP that only edits policy pages? It's at least suspicious. 86.** IP (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do far more mainspace edits than project edits on most days. --78.35.237.202 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and now we have 78 ... What is going on? Why do all these anons post here? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to know is why anons being the only people to object to policy discussions is considered grounds for considering that all progress must be permanently blocked. 86.** IP (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Hello, Gareth Griffith-Jones. You have new messages at 87.79.106.55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Y'know what?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Essay_lying_about_content_of_guidelines. This seems to be an overt effort to rewrite policy and guidelines by stealth, by being misleading about them in less-scrutinised pages. 86.** IP (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

February 2012 The Sopranos

The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding your message

Oops...

The Sopranos (episode) Info' box

"Guest stars" or just guest actors? (possible edit request)

Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)

How can I report vandalism to an administrator, such as yourself?

Good to know you are back

Application to use Huggle

The Girl with the dragon tattoo

Family Tree (part of)

"Plot spoilers" Jmaxmiller11

Help, please!

A404 editing...

Citation Invisible Children, Inc

Bradypus

Dashes

More on dash

The lead: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)

Happy New Year

WikiProject Wales

Castleton, Newport

Cymru button

Revision number

Talkback

Edit conflict

Creating that link

Your "Dash" Discussion comment

{{helpme}}

Wikipedia:Twinkle and Teahouse

Section retitled Cwm Rhondda

Space before ellipsis

Square brackets, round parentheses and curly braces

... good advice given in the edit summary...

...(minor) correction

RE: Wales: Map

My editing Cardiff Arms Park

Happy St David's Day

Wikipedia mark-up dating: non-breaking space

WikiProject Film Newsletter

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The Triple Crown ... on points-difference

The Triple Crown and now, Grand Slam

Triple Crown 2012 in Six nations article

Grand Union Canal

Hwyl!

B4521

Hello Wikiedit!

Thanks!

Cacen gri i ti

Strange rugby edits

Rugby Union 1934 Championship edit summary ... "See user talk page" ... does not apply to you

A barnstar for you!

Eric F 's query

Citation Invisible Children, Inc

Url 'n' link

Hello from me

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse!

Auto Wiki Browser user permission granted April 12, 2012

Sure!

Hidden message ... found

Paris / St Denis

The Godfather

Good work!

The Godfather ... again!

Sonny's death

The Godfather trilogy

Brevity

WikiProject Film Award

It's a wonderful life

You're welcome!

The Godfather Effect

Don't be alarmed!

Do you have any suggestion for The Godfather dispute?

This is becoming serious

Buon compleanno

Happy Birthday mate

Lurker

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}