User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive14

Archives
2005 Jan-10 May 2006 10 May-4 June 2006 4 June-27 July 2006 27 July - 31 August 2006 September - 2 November 2006 2 November - 31 December 2006 1 Jan - 3 March 2007 March/April 2007 May/22 June 2007 June/19 Aug 2007 -end of 2007 12 13

This sounds silly from one stranger to another stranger.

Since I made that stupid error about the picture I've been keeping track. You seem upset, and I think I can see why.

If you need to talk to me in confidence my email is rubbishaddress (AT) live.co.uk

81.149.250.228 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above newsletter was delivered by an automatic bot because you are registered on the WikiProject Big Brother spamlist. Please feel free to remove yourself if you do not wish to receive these messages anymore.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had it on permanent redirect protection to Cherish (band) because of the lack of sources at the time. However, that was two months ago, and now it is less than a week until the album's release date (which is May 13). Since then, I found its listing on Amazon.com. It features the cover, release date, tracklisting, and has samples to verify it. So now, I request an unprotection of the redirect, please. Tom Danson (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that you're away from Wikipedia, at least for the moment. I appreciated your encouragement with Verna's article. Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:All About Me.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glacially, with a speed that makes the drift of continents seem like rapid transit, the wheels at the League of Copyeditors turn. I am reviewing this article. I see you are on a wiki-break. But when you return, drop a note on my talk page if you want to pitch it as a FAC again, and I will look at the copy again, just to ensure that it is tidy. Apologies for the delay, but LOCE is chronically understaffed. They've recently had a fresh infusion; I'm one of the new number. If I have any particular content questions, I'll pose them here, on the assumption that you will eventually return. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:LIVINGtv2 logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late — well, okay a year late — but I just want to say congratulations for getting Yes, Minister up to FA status. Your conduct during the extraordinarily long approval process was exemplary. I'd honestly never have the patience you exhibited. Therefore, I award you with the following:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for shepherding the article Yes, Minister on a long journey to FA status. Your calm, detailed communication with other editors during the process is an example of how the process should work. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 10:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user vandalished yesterday that's wikipedia articles. Here His/Her Contributions. It would watch that guy and His/Her editions. They can lead us to the confusion. --Ravave (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.161.123 (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back editing. I thought U had left as your name was all redded out, and I just noticed you edited an article on my watch list. So anyway, seeing as you were the very first editor who was nice to me here all the way back in 2006, i'm really pleased you didnt leave for good. You've done so much great work here, a shame it's never appreciated enough, but hope you know it's at least appreciated by some :) GunGagdin^Moan 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate! Just spotted you were back (I need to pay more attention to... stuff). Hope you're okay. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you for your kind comments. I took a wikibreak (I had intended leaving for good) for the same sort of phenomena as you, Redvers, talk about in your Commons essay. Specifically, it was over the Joking Apart FAC. I had written it from scratch, referenced it, supplied free images... and when it gets to FAC, I was humiliated and treat with such contempt for some grammatical issues. For those on Commons that have an intricate knowledge of the categories, then just fix it. For me, I don't want a patronising grammar lesson; if you possess admirable copyediting skills, then just fix the fucking thing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Although my English is far from perfect, my work is usually an improvement on its previous state. I doubt I will ever bother getting an article up to a GA or FA standard again -- that is my 'lesson' in counter-productivity. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. Normally I reply in new sections, but having read the bit above I thought my reply belongs here :) I'm conscious that it might seem a little rude when I comment at WP:FAC but do not !vote. Recently I've started to read most FAC candidates, almost always find something that I can fix, and occasionally find an ambiguity that I raise as a comment, however despite rereading WP:FACR I don't yet feel qualified to judge on criteria 1a or usually 1b. But I absolutely share your editing philosophy; this is a collaborative effort where we all contribute as volunteers. A large part of my edits are fixing other people's typos, sometimes as when I searched Wikipedia for "ablums" I wind up fixing dozens of errors by the same editor, but I'd much rather they go on contributing and I swept up after them than say something that might upset them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Evening Chronicle (North East England daily newspaper) logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder; I'll be over there shortly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other ones haven't had a reply yet, so I'm still unsure about their reliability. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this question regarding one of your images. Dragons flight (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be asking too much for you to look the article over and give me some pointers on the problems you see with it passing as a GA or FA article? I get discouraged sometimes with nothing but negative edits —Kitchen roll is certainly an exception— on it mostly. Should let it pass, I know. I've worked it for too long to give up - even though I sometimes want to. If you could just give an honest assessment without getting involved (if you prefer that) you don't know how much I would appreciate it. Agadant (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Seidenstud (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the other day I was thinking about nominating this article for GA. Looks like you beat me to it! Bradley0110 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I chose not to nominate it because the huge amount of crap actor articles that have been pumped through GA over the summer made me feel down. Plus, we don't have dates and roles for all of his theatre performances. Still, these two interviews [1][2] seem to just say "Is your Wikipedia article correct?", so at least we know the page is factually accurate! Leave a note on my talk page when you get around to working on Jekyll; it needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch—it's heavily-reliant on press releases at the moment and needs to incorporate more secondary sources. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not my favourite person in the world, you know.

Even so, you have my limited support with your wikipedia edits.

I thought you would like some support! 217.39.5.54 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check reply at my talk page. thx Jurohi (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not civil. I agree. But when someone is going to add to an encyclopedia, then at least, they should use proper syntax and semantics. Most editors here can't spell. And English is only my SECOND language. When I see things like "I could of done that", it makes me cringe. And it happens too often here on Wikipedia. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As its stated goals, Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you possess admirable copyediting skills, that is great. However, it is inappropriate to discuss the work of others with such contempt (some established editors have that annoying habit). Perhaps the editors of the work you are commenting upon don't have English as a first language, or have not had a privileged education. Civility and respect are more in keeping with the pillars of the project rather than relatively superficial grammatical issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The JPS. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for uploading File:IACBTMNphoto90.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you one little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.56.52 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sob, sob, sob. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan either, come to think of it 217.39.1.5 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you think long and hard about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.56.52 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - when I said I wasn't a fan... it wasn't a not fan of the JPS - it was not a fan of you you cunt IP 217.39.1.5 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that makes A LOT OF SENSE in the context. Anyway, I'm back after a disgusting block, and I don't intend to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.69.221 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure what you meant when you said that you can't accept copywrited material since I added none. I simply added a new category --Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees -- and you removed it without a reason. Can you explain that please? Thank you. Bill shannon (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a central place to discuss this and invite editors who have an issue. It came up on Shakespeare in Love, also. Regardless of what is written on the category page, it is redundant to put a film in the nominee and the winner categories. It also seems to me to be over-categorization. My view is that the winning supercedes the nomination. Perhaps consensus should be solicited on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why I brought it up at the Film project. I agree with your view. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JPS! There's a question here about an article you deleted. Do you think that article can be restored or is it better to write another properly? Maybe you could explain yourself. You seem to have a lot of non-fans btw ;) Chamal ^talk 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know: I've replied on the page to which you link. Yes, I have a littler army of non-fans. They range from a kid who is still upset that I deleted his non-free image violations about 40 months ago, to the truly psychotic. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that says it all really 86.173.139.210 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articulate as usual. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all four Jaws articles are GA, it'll be easy to squish them altogether if you want to bring it to GA too. I'm not sure how I can help really since I know nothing of the sequels. Alientraveller (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi'd your user and talkpages temporarily owing to an outbreak of silliness there. Thanks, Black Kite 14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Yeah, if the kid is wasting the vandal-fighters' time, it's probably best. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove it yourself when your army of fans gets bored :) Black Kite 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more appropriate to up it to full protection for a content dispute. I know I could still edit it, but it avoids the image of one rule for editors, one for IPs. I would do it, but that would be a huge conflict of interest. What do you think? For the issue itself, I have solicited opinions from 3 wikiprojects. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the level of protection. On the other hand, thinking again. if you're an admin too it might look worse to restrict editing to just admins... The JPS^{talk to me} 15:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The point is that nobody should edit that article until it is unprotected, admin or not. When we get a consensus either way, then it is unprotected and anyone can edit it again. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've GA reviewed the Steven Moffat article, which you nominated. I highlighted a couple of things, which I've put on the review page. Feel free to contact me with any queries. Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There were several problems with the One Foot in the Grave article. Character description was too long for the page so a new one was created for this. The plot summary went off the point and into an episode synopsis of the first episode; it was also full of opinions and Wikipeda articles are suppose to be neutral. The plot summary is designed to summarise the key points, so there’s no need for over-the-top detail. Thank you.Edito*Magica (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the discussion page. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm glad we've settled the issues in question. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the article is better suited to prose, a cast list is an exception because it's the best way of showing which actors play which characters. A majority of articles relating to comedy shows do use cast lists. Prose isn't always the best way of displaying information, that's way infoboxes are also used. And large amounts of text doesn't mean an article is good when the same information can be conveyed in much fewer words. So don't be alarmed if expression is sharpened to make the article more concise. I've shifted some of the information under the plot summary to a new, more relevant heading. For example, as with many other comedy articles of this kind, specific episode information has been placed under the "episode" heading. The final thing is that the character synopses make the article too long, and again many articles of this kind do use a separate page for character detail...i have done the same for this one to further improve the quality of the article.Edito*Magica (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion to the article's talk page so that all editors can keep track of it more easily. Thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the article on my watchlist and saw you protected it. As an involved editor you should not have protected it to your prefered version. Garion96 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I was not the primary author of this article (only a handful of its content is mine) I considered myself to be independent enough to protect it. However, since I have made some more edits, you're right that I'm not the person to protect it. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even yesterday protection was not that good though since you edited the article while it was protected. I have to article on my watclist and will also keep an eye on it and protect it if necessary. Garion96 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my last three comments on the discussion page. Thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your slightly random questions...

• My previous username was Chris Nichols
• I changed it it because I prefer not to use my real name.
• And if you are interested in my editing history, simply click on the contributions tag next to my username on an "edit history" page.

Back to the point, the tags have been removed again so i'm going to reincorporate them into the article. Tags should not be removed until issues have been resolved. Wikipedia policy. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from your tag "this article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose." So not always better using prose. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an article about a television programme, preferably a British sitcom, listed at WP:FA that uses such a list. I've already shown you several that doesn't. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to the following quote about a featured article criteria:

• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)".

The style guide also states:

• "What is and is not included as "readable prose":

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:

• Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
• Diagrams and images
• Tables and lists
• Wikilinks and external URLs
• Formatting and mark-up.

An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway; but even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done to allow easier navigation and per-section editing.

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

Edito*Magica (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One foot in the grave is at least over a page long:

An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation' (see the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway; but even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done to allow easier navigation and per-section editing.' Why are you so against sub-pages?Edito*Magica (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked to find your examples yet, but the style guide clearly states that lists should be excluded from prose and pages one or two long should be divided into sub-pages. Why should One foot differ from Wikipedia's manual of style? Edito*Magica (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're implying all Wiki pages are over one or two pages, then they too need dividing up. One foot shouldn't copy other articles' mistakes. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's far too time consuming to plough through all featured articles just to prove you wrong. Instead i choose two at random, Cold feet and Last of the Summer Wine. Both either feature cast lists or sub-pages for the character description, and i would find more if i looked. If featured articles use cast lists and sub-pages...so should one foot in the grave.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Cold feet under casting is a link to a sub-page. There you'll find a table with the cast in it. Last of the Summer Wine you'll a sub-page for characters.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by The Brittas Empire page, after condensing the character description down, it seems fine on the main article. But One foot in the Grave has character description too lengthy to be on the same page, so i persist in it being moved to a sub-page, or the character description being condensed so it's not too long to be on the same page. The tags should still remain until issues have been resolved though. Edito*Magica (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Bohemian Rhapsody, an article which you have contributed extensively to, was nominated for FA (see this.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, thanks. I warned TGF in the peer review what would happen if it was nominated now. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]